Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Identification of soil erosion-prone areas for effective mitigation measures

using a combined approach of morphometric analysis and geographical
information system
Ayana Asrat Duressa a, Tolera Abdissa Feyissa a, b, Nasir Gebi Tukura a,
Beekan Gurmessa Gudeta a, Gadefa Fekadu Gechelu a, Takele Sambeto Bibi c, *
a
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jimma University, Jimma, 378, Ethiopia
b
Geotechnics and Coastal Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Rostock University, 18059, Rostock, Germany
c
Madda Walabu University, Water and Sanitation Engineering Department, Robe, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current worldwide effects of soil erosion are a result of natural and human activities, and it had serious
Soil erosion consequences on ecosystems, agriculture, and water quality in the watershed. As a result, quantifying the
Morphometric parameters physical characteristics of a watershed can be used to identify areas that are more susceptible to soil erosion and
Prioritization
require immediate mitigation measures. This study prioritizes the fourteen sub-watersheds in the Dabus
Dabus River watershed
Watershed, Ethiopia using a Geographical Information System based on the variety of parameters for imple­
Geographical information system
menting short and long-term effective watershed management practices. For each sub-watershed (SW), the
compound parameter was calculated from different morphometric parameters and used to rank the areas. The
findings show that SW1, SW7, and SW10 are contributing very high soil erosion in the study area with its
2390.75 km2, 2555.77 km2, and 1642.71 km2 covering area; however, SW2, SW8, SW9, and SW14 are the areas
lowly degraded due its soil erosion is low. Thus, mitigation measures such as contouring, terracing, filter strips,
and other structural/non-structural effective approaches should be implemented in the area where high soil
erosion was contributed.

1. Introduction advancements, etc [5]. For example [6,7]; and [8]; noted that it is a
major problem affecting around 30 % (over 120 million hectares) of the
Soil erosion is becoming a global challenge, causing various effects Indian country’s total land area due to deforestation, overgrazing, and
such as reducing crop yields, degradation of water quality, leading to unsustainable agricultural practices. According to their findings, the top
inundation, degrading land by making it unsuitable for agriculture and layer of the fertile soil is minimized and the risks of natural disasters
others [1]. Moreover, it is a significant problem that poses a devastating increase, and also causing flooding during heavy rainfall. In addition,
impact on food security, livelihoods, and the environment. It not only they suggested that to keep the country’s economy by increasing agri­
depletes the fertile soil needed for agriculture but also leads to reduced cultural productivity which reduces poverty, the significant effects of
agricultural productivity, loss of biodiversity, and increased vulnera­ soil erosion should be managed by protecting forests, building terraces
bility to climate change. This heavily affects economic growth [2], af­ and other structures, promoting sustainable agriculture, and others.
fects the hydropower structures by increasing sediment yield in Furthermore [9], highlighted that it is a major environmental problem
reservoirs which can reduce the capacity to generate electricity (Takele in Mexico, affecting over 45 % of the national territory and also can lead
et al., 2023), reduces the essential soil nutrients [3], increased malnu­ to economic losses. Near 1.5 billion tons of soil is lost every year in
trition by reducing people’s access to affordable and nutritious food [4]. Ethiopia [10]; the effects are similar in Kenya as per the study of [11].
In developing countries, soil erosion is frequently caused by Both countries are affected by short-term effects, i.e., decreased crop
numerous human and natural factors, which can result in droughts and yields, increased runoff and flooding, loss of nutrients and organic
flooding, a lack of economic development and technological matter, and reduced soil fertility; and various long-term effects such as

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (T.S. Bibi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101712
Received 7 November 2023; Received in revised form 21 December 2023; Accepted 22 December 2023
Available online 30 December 2023
2590-1230/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

desertification, loss of biodiversity, increased poverty and hunger, Abay Basin of the Upper Blue Nile Basin (UBNB) of Ethiopia including
decreased economic growth according to their study conclusion. [30,31]; and [32] to assess the effects of soil erosion and sediment yield,
Consequently, numerous scholars have made attempts to develop and mitigation measures required to tackle the problems. According to
both general and specific solutions to address the effects of soil erosion, their results, the Abay basin has experienced soil erosion at a rate of up
taking into account the particular causes and impacts in a given area. For to 200 tons/ha/year [33]. stated that erosion is more seriously affecting
instance, in regions where deforestation stands as a significant the upper blue Nile basin, while [34] indicated an annual erosion rate of
contributor to soil erosion, collaborative efforts from government sec­ more than 100 t/ha as around 0.95% in Ethiopia’s is from the UBNR
tors, NGOs, and other experts may focus on reforestation initiatives and basin. The construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam
the promotion of sustainable forest management practices [12]. By (GERD) represents a significant achievement for the unit of nations,
replanting forests and implementing sustainable practices, these stake­ nationalities, and peoples of Ethiopia, as it is set to become the largest
holders aim to mitigate the adverse effects of erosion caused by defor­ dam in Africa and generate 6450 MW (MW) of electricity upon
estation [13]. Similarly, in areas where overgrazing poses a major completion. However, there are concerns about the potential impact of
problem, national and international sectors may collaborate with other high erosion rates in the watershed upstream of the dam on its efficiency
stakeholders to devise strategies aimed at reducing livestock numbers or and lifespan (Takele et al., 2023). Similarly [35], touted the dam as a
improving grazing management practices [14]. To develop any mitiga­ critical dam in Ethiopia that will be used to achieve the UN Sustainable
tion measures in the watershed, the characteristic areas should be Development Goals by 2030, however its reservoir exacerbated soil
prioritized and the prone area should identified. erosion from the upper areas. The GERD dam is designed to trap over a
There are a variety of methods like field survey and expert judgment, 100 years of sediment yield. However, few studies e.g. Refs. [36,37],
morphometric analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis, using satellite noted that insufficient and comprehensive sediment data from all
imagery, hydrological modeling, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), sub-basins, coupled with rapid land degradation, has led to
etc that can be used to identify and prioritize prone areas in a watershed higher-than-anticipated sediment yields. Specifically, the Dabus and
for mitigation measures [15,16]. Each method has its limitations and Didessa watersheds are contributing to this excessive soil erosion due to
merits, therefore, before selecting anybody should be compared based its steep slopes, heavy rainfall, and land-use practices. The consequences
on the accuracy, the output of the method, the cost and experts required of exceeding the dam’s sediment trapping capacity are significant,
to implement, the availability of data, and limitations [17]. used including reduced reservoir capacity, a shortened dam lifespan, and
analytical hierarchy approach and fuzzy logic for mapping soil-prone adverse environmental effects that could harm aquatic ecosystems,
areas in the Gusru watershed, India, and [18] applied the same tech­ impact water quality, and hinder agricultural productivity [38–41].
niques to identify the best management practices in the northwestern Prior studies in the Upper Blue Nile watersheds have studied com­
Himalayas after mapping the prone areas affected by high soil erosion plex interplay between land use, climate change, and soil erosion [42].
risks. Also, they suggested that a field survey is a highly accurate explored the impact of landuse practices on soil loss, while [30] inves­
method, but it has limitations because requires high cost and time to tigated the potential benefits of adopting sustainable land management
collect the required data [19]. found that expert judgment is a more practices. More recently [43], examined the combined effects of
valuable tool than GIS-based machine-learning approaches, AHP, and land-use/land-cover (LULC) and climate changes on soil erosion rate.
fuzzy logic modeling for identifying areas affected by soil erosion in the These studies have highlighted the importance of assessing soil erosion
Kunur River Basin, West Bengal, India, especially in areas where field rates and implementing mitigation measures to minimize the impact on
surveys are difficult or expensive to conduct. According to earlier downstream reservoirs. However, these alone not enough for regional
studies’ findings, expert judgment is a valuable tool for identifying areas and federal government sectors to pinpoint areas for interventions and
affected by soil erosion based on the local knowledge and experience, management, implements rapid response strategies, and facilitate
but it is important to note that its output can be medium where sufficient effective collaboration for soil conservation programs. Therefore, it is
data and skilled experts are unavailable. LIDAR data is very accurate crucial to identify and prioritize soil erosion-prone areas in specific
method to measure elevation changes with millimeter precision; how­ watersheds. A combined approach of morphometric analysis and
ever, it is more expensive and time-consuming especially for large and Geographical Information System is used in this study to classify and
complex watersheds like a hydrological modeling [20]. Morphometric prioritizes areas in the Dabus watershed based soil erosion rate. The
analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis, and satellite imagery are results can be used by policymakers, water resources managers, and
valuable tools mostly used, the most accurate, and comprehensive farmers to identify areas where soil erosion is [40,44,45] most severe
method for identifying and prioritizing soil erosion-prone areas in wa­ and to develop more intensive conservation measures, such as terracing
tersheds [21,22]. However, satellite imagery is expensive to acquire and and contour farming.
process [23]. Morphometric analysis is a simpler and less expensive
method; this method also gives sound results with consult with experts. 2. Methods and materials
The soil erosion from upstream including the Dabus watershed can
damage the turbine blades by causing them to are widely adopted in 2.1. Description of the study area
worldwide watershed-based morphometric characteristics of the area
including drainage basin area, drainage density, drainage order, relief, The Dabus watershed is one of the largest tributaries of the Blue Nile
and network diameter using the digital elevation model (DEM) of a in Ethiopia, and it contributes approximately one-third of the total flow
specific area [24–26]. After the areas identified, both national and in­ of the upper Blue Nile, along with other tributaries such as the Didessa
ternational governmental and non-governmental agencies have to play a River itself, the Gumera River, and the Rib River [44–46]. This makes
great efforts to sustain long-term prosperity and food security by mini­ the Dabus watershed a vital source of water used for irrigation, drinking
mizing the soil erosion from prone areas. According to Refs. [27,28]; water, and hydropower in the Blue Nile and the downstream countries
hydropower generation is extremely important for any country’s sus­ that depend on it. Geographically it is situated between 9◦ 00’00’’ to
tainable development, but it can be affected by climate change, so 10◦ 45’00’’N, and longitude of 34◦ 30’00’’ to 35◦ 40’00’’E (Fig. 1),
prediction under current and future climate change is required. covering an area of 14,793.81 square kilometers.
Ethiopia is one of the Sub-Saharan African countries, which is The Dabus watershed, which originates in the central and south­
characterized by significant land degradation, soil erosion, and sedi­ western parts of Wollega, covered two regions with seven woredas in
mentation due to various factors [29]. The country is widely affected by Benishangul Gumuz and twelve woredas in Oromia. The elevation of the
the effect of soil erosion in several watersheds due to resource con­ watershed ranges from 553 to 3165 m (Fig. 1), with the higher altitudes
straints. In recent decades, various researchers were conducted in the in the eastern part, greater than 1500 m, and the lower altitudes in the

2
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 1. Location map of the Study area or Dabus sub-basin.

northern part, less than 900 m. The climate of the study area ranges from Marble is a softer rock that is more susceptible to erosion. Alluvium
cold in the highlands to moderately hot in the lowlands, with mean deposits are made up of loose sediments that can be easily eroded by
annual temperatures ranging from 14 ◦ C to 26 ◦ C and annual rainfall water. The erosion of these rocks in the study area could lead to several
ranging from 1166 mm to 1884 mm. problems, including increased sedimentation in rivers and streams,
The presence of granite, marble, and alluvium deposits in the Dabus decreased soil fertility, and increased dust storms. The most common
watershed also has implications for climate change. Granite is a rela­ soil types in the Dabus watershed are Chromic Cambisols, Chromic
tively resistant rock, but it can be weathered by erosion over time. Luvisols, Chromic Vertisols, Dystric Gleysols, Dystric Nitisols, Eutric

3
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 2. Mean annual temperature and rainfall distribution in dws.

Cambisols, Eutric Fluvisols, Eutric Nitisols, Eutric Regosols, Leptosols, landcover in the study area.
Orthic Acrisols, Orthic Luvisols, Pellic Vertisols, and Phaeozems (Fig. 1).
The wooded grass, cultivated lands, perennial swamp, ramped grass­
land, and distributed high forest (Fig. 1) are the most common landuse

Fig. 3. Conceptual workflow frame of the study area.

4
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

2.2. Data source and types Table 1

Morphometric parameters, their equations, and units.
For this study, the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data with a spatial S/ Parameters The formula used to Unit References
resolution of 12.5 m × 12.5 m is downloaded from the Alaska Satellite No compute
Facility website and a Topographic map of the study area was obtained Fundamental Aspects (Basic parameters)
from the Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy Office. The basin area, 1 Area (A) GIS analysis km2 (Arabameri
boundaries of the sub-watersheds, and drainage system/pattern of the et al. , 2020
study area were analyzed using topographic maps, and also DEM was [48];
[48]
used to determine the selected parameters and delineate the sub- 2 Perimeter (P) “ km ’’
watershed after the fill, calculate flow direction and flow accumula­ 3 Stream order Hierarchical rank Dimensionless ’’
tion, analyze the stream networks are done from extracted DEM. This (U)
information can help to better understand the areas with high soil 4 Stream Ns = ’’
number (Ns) Nu1+Nu2+⋅⋅⋅+Nun
erosion risk, prioritize watersheds for soil erosion control measures, and
5 Stream length Ls = L1+ L2+ … Ln, km [49,50]
design effective soil erosion control measures. (Ls) Length of the stream of
each order
2.3. Methods 6 Min (h)/ GIS analysis m ’’
maximum
elevation (H)
Prioritization of different areas according to soil erosion severity in Linear aspect (Derived parameters
the study area based on morphometric analysis can be done in the 1 Length of 1 km [48]
following steps [47]; Debelo and Tadele, 2017) Fig. 2: overland flow 2xDd
(Lf)
2 Mean stream Ls km
1. To make it easier to identify and prioritize areas with high soil
’’
length (Lm) Ns
severity, firstly delineate watershed into sub-watersheds using an 3 Stream length Ls Dimensionless [47]
ArcGIS. ratio (Lsr) Ls − 1
2. Calculate morphometric parameters for each sub-watershed, as 4 Bifurcation Ns Dimensionless [51]
Ratio (Br) Ns + 1
shown in Fig. 3 which can be used to assess the susceptibility of each
5 Drainage Ls km/km2 [52]
sub-watershed to soil erosion. Four aspects such as linear aspects, density (Dd) A
areal aspects, relief aspects, and fundamental (basic) aspects were 6 Drainage
∑
(Ns) km − 1
[48]
assumed for morphometric analysis. Morphometric parameters and texture (Dt)
∑
P
− 2
their formulas are presented in Table 1. 7 Stream Ns km [48,52]
frequency (Sf) A
3. Give a rank for each of the morphometric parameters based on their
Areal (Shape)
relation to soil erosion. 1 Basin length 1.312XA0.568 , km [48]
4. Calculate compound values (CP) for each sub-watershed. (Lb) Where A = area of
5. Prioritize the sub-watersheds for conservation measures based on Basin (km2)
their CP value and other factors, such as the importance of the land 2 Form factor A Dimensionless [48]
(Ff) Lb2
for agriculture or other uses. √̅̅̅̅
3 Elongation 2X A ’’ [52]
√̅̅̅, π = 3.14
ratio (Er) Lbx π
Arc GIS is a powerful tool used to analyze morphometric parameters 4 Circulatory 4xπxA ’’ [53]
,
and prioritize the watershed. In morphometric analysis basic, derived, ratio (Cr) P2
A = basin area (km2)
shape, and relief parameters were used for the sub-basin prioritizations.
Relief aspect
The most basic parameters that were used to define the geometrical 1 Basin relief Max. - Min. elevation m [50]
parameters (Elevation, area, perimeter, length, and number of streams) (Rb) of sub-watershed
were digitally acquired using GIS software for each sub-watershed 2 Relief ratio Rb Dimensionless ’’
separately. Firstly, the watershed area which means the total area of (Rr) Lb
3 Ruggedness Rb x Dd ’’ [48]
land that drains to a particular water body is estimated using spatial number (Rn)
analysis tools. The watershed area is a very important morphometric 4 Relative relief Rb ’’ [48]
parameter for identifying sub-watersheds with more surface area for (Rr) P
rainfall to intercept and longer drainage paths, which means that the
water will have more time to accumulate and flow downhill.
Perimeter, stream order, stream number, and stream length are other drainage density and steep slopes are more susceptible to erosion than
basic parameter that can be used to characterize watersheds. It is defined watersheds with low drainage density and gentle slopes. Once the basic
as the total length of the boundary of a watershed. Higher-order streams morphometric parameters have been computed using GIS, the derived
are more likely to experience high runoff rates and erosion during storm parameters can be determined using mathematical formulae as shown in
events due to they have larger drainage areas and steeper channel slopes Table 1. Drainage density and bifurcation ratio are two useful
than lower-order streams. A value of the higher number of streams of a morphometric parameters for assessing soil erosion risk, to calculate Dd
given order is considered as a more mature drainage network, similarly, and Br we followed the following steps:
longer streams have more time and distance for water to accumulate and
flow downhill. This means that they are more likely to experience high 1. Delineate the watershed boundary
runoff rates and erosion during storm events. According to Ref. [54] 2. Create a stream network layer from a DEM using the Hydrology
drainage textures are classified from very coarse to very fine in different toolset in ArcGIS.
classes, <2 (very coarse), 2–4 (coarse), 4–6 (moderate), 6–8 (fine), and 3. Calculate the total length of the network’s streams as well as the
>8 (very fine). stream order for each segment of the stream network.
During the runoff and sediment transport processes can be affected 4. The drainage density is calculated by dividing the total stream length
by watershed characteristics, other derived, areal, and relief aspects by the watershed area. The bifurcation ratio for each order is ob­
morphometric parameters considered in this study to evaluate soil tained by dividing the number of streams of order u by the number of
erosion risk in several ways [55]. The watersheds that have high streams of order u+1.

5
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Similarly to derived parameters, information about the general shape selected parameters with soil erosion in the watersheds of different
of the watershed can be obtained by estimating areal (shape) parameters areas, such as the Gidabo Basin, Southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia; Kalvari
from fundamental parameters. For example, watersheds with a high Basin, Iran; and Jema and Didesa, Ethiopia. This implies that the specific
circularity ratio and shape factor are generally less susceptible to erosion morphometric parameters that are significant for soil erosion in various
than watersheds with a low circularity ratio and shape factor. The watersheds are unlikely to be identical. For instance, the range of stream
circularity ratio can then be mapped or analyzed using GIS to identify length in Dabus (0.58–1.34) differs from that observed in Jema and
areas of the watershed that are more susceptible to erosion. To assess soil Didessa watersheds. Similarly, the range of drainage texture in the study
erosion risk, identify areas suitable for development, and plan for soil area (0.26–0.88) is higher than Jema and Didessa but lower than Gidabo
water conservation four relief aspect parameters were computed using Basin in the Southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia (0.483–1.188). Moreover,
the equation presented in Table 1 from basic, derived, and areal the results of other parameters vary across each watershed, indicating
parameters. differences in outcomes, although the circulation ratio remains rela­
tively consistent. This variability can be influenced by several factors
such as rainfall intensity and pattern, slope characteristics, drainage
2.4. Estimation of compound values for each sub-watershed
patterns related to topography, geology and soil, as well as land use and
land cover.
Compound values (CP) are an average rank that is used to prioritize
Moreover, areal parameters, such as circularity ratio, elongation
watersheds by combining multiple morphometric parameters into a
ratio, shape factor, and compactness coefficient, generally have a
single value. It is calculated by summing each morphometric parameter
weaker correlation with soil erosion than linear and relief parameters.
rank and then dividing by the number of selected parameters (N). The
The Dabus watershed is divided into 14 sub-watersheds based on their
ranks are assigned based on the relation of each parameter to soil
flow direction and stream flow, as shown in Fig. 4. Selected morpho­
erosion. Once the compound values have been calculated, the water­
metric parameters were calculated for each sub-watershed to rank them
sheds can be prioritized based on their values. Watersheds with the
by parameter and identify areas with high soil erosion risk.
highest compound values are generally considered to be the highest
priority for erosion control or other management measures. In this
3.1.1. Basic characteristics of dabus watershed
study, the watershed is prioritized based on the soil erosion rate using
Basic morphometric parameters are the most fundamental parame­
calculated CP according to these steps: (i) select the morphometric pa­
ters used to characterize a watershed by providing information about the
rameters that are directly or inversely related to erosion risk, (ii) assign a
size, shape, and other physical characteristics of the watershed. Dabus
rank to each parameter based on its importance to erosion risk, (iii)
watershed has a total area of 14,793.81 km2 and a perimeter of 1002.61
calculate the compound value for each sub-watershed using Equation 1,
km. The perimeters and areas of the Dabus sub-watershed range from
and (iv) Sub-watersheds were classified into four classes as very high,
73.6 to 864.99 km and 105.39–2555.77 km2, respectively, as shown in
high, medium, and low priority to soil erosion if compound values were
Fig. 5. Large area sub-watersheds have high rates of soil erosion, which
less than 5.5, 5.5 to 6.5, 6.5 to 7.5, and greater than 7.5, respectively.
is consistent with the findings of [63]. This is because longer overland
Our classification system was based on the average rank value of each
sub-watershed [56,57].
∑
n
Rank of parameters
Compound value = i=1 (1)
N

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Analysis of dabus watershed morphometric parameters

Understanding the physical characteristics of a Dabus watershed is

essential to assess the risk of soil erosion and develop effective soil
erosion control measures, as these characteristics have a significant
impact on the rate and severity of erosion. Human activity and climate
change aside, the specific physical characteristics of the watershed play
a crucial role in determining soil erosion [58]. Hence, we analyzed four
morphometric parameters, namely basic, linear, areal, and relief aspects
parameters, to identify and prioritize areas that are highly susceptible to
soil erosion. Furthermore, understanding all of these parameters is
critical for accurately predicting soil erosion and developing mitigation
strategies for hotspot areas. Linear and relief morphometric parameters
have direct relationships with soil erosion by controlling the speed and
flow of water, while areal morphometric parameters have indirect re­
lationships with soil erosion. This is consistent with [59,60] findings.
Similar results are shown by Refs. [60,61]; who noticed that
sub-watersheds that have higher areal parameter values are more cir­
cular in shape, have shorter perimeters and have lower rates of soil
erosion. Sub-watersheds with high values of all linear and relief
morphometric parameters, such as drainage density, stream frequency,
length of overland flow, basin relief, relief ratio, and ruggedness num­
ber, have more runoff and steeper slopes, making them more susceptible
to erosion. This is consistent with the findings of [39,49]; and [62]; who
also found that sub-watersheds with these parameters suffer from high
erosion rates. In this study, we cross-checked the relationships of the Fig. 4. Sub-watersheds of Dabus watershed.

6
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 5. Perimeter and area of each dabus sub-watershed

*Red color indicates perimeter, black color indicates area of sub-watershed.

flow lengths enable runoff to dissolve soil particles thoroughly before measure of the complexity of a drainage network. Higher stream orders
entering a stream. The sub-watersheds can be ranked from highest indicate more complex drainage networks, which are typically associ­
perimeter to lowest perimeter. The findings of [64] indicated that the ated with larger drainage areas, longer stream lengths, and steeper
area has higher values of selected parameters severely affected by soil slopes.
erosion. However, this is not universally true for all sub-areas of Dabus [67,68] defined the stream order system as a hierarchical classifi­
watershed. For instance, the results of selected parameters in the SW13 cation of streams based on their tributary relationships. The shortest
are high, but this sub-watershed is not as harshly affected by soil erosion unbranched streams are first-order streams, and when two first-order
than sub-watersheds which have lower results of selected morphometric streams converge, they form a second-order stream segment. This pro­
parameters, overall rank, and compound value. cess continues, with 2 s-order streams converging to form a third-order
The finding shows that sub-watersheds 12 and 1 ranked last and 1st stream segment, and so on. Three sub-watersheds in the Dabus water­
by their perimeter value, respectively. However, the overall average shed (SW4, SW7, and SW10) are fifth-order, seven sub-watersheds
rank of all selected parameters reveals that sub-watersheds 12 and 1 are (SW1, SW3, SW5, SW6, SW9, SW11, and SW13) are fourth-order, and
categorized as very high and low soil erosion risk areas, respectively. four sub-watersheds (SW2, SW8, SW12, and SW14) are third-order, as
Takele et al. (2023) and [65] emphasize the importance of identifying shown in Fig. 6.
other contributing factors to soil erosion, such as land use practices, soil Other basic parameters inversely correlated with stream order are
type, slope, and climate, to prioritize sub-watersheds. This indicates that also considered for watershed characterization. For example, stream
area and perimeter alone are not sufficient predictors of soil erosion number decreases as stream order increases because higher-order
rates in sub-watersheds, as other factors can also contribute to high or streams form from the confluence of two or more lower-order streams.
low erosion rates. Therefore, experts should compare sub-watersheds Table 1 presents the relationships between stream order, stream num­
using a variety of morphometric parameters, including basic, linear, ber, and stream length in each sub-watershed of the study area. Table 1
relief, and areal parameters as recommended by Refs. [65,66]. shows that the stream number in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th order
In addition, other basic parameters such as stream order, stream sub-watersheds is 820, 414, 240, 110, and 27, respectively. The total
number, stream length, and max/min elevation can be used to identify stream number in the watershed is 1611. Sub-watersheds 1 and 12 have
watersheds that are at high soil erosion risk, assess the impact of phys­ the maximum and minimum stream numbers, with 255 and 11 streams,
ical watershed characteristics on soil erosion, and identify watersheds respectively. Since stream length has a significant impact on soil erosion,
that are suitable for mitigation measures development. Stream order is a it is an important factor to consider. However, measuring the length of

7
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 6. Stream order of study area.

each stream manually is time-consuming, so we can use GIS to measure higher stream frequency and longer lengths of overland flow indicate a
stream length from a digital elevation model (DEM) [61]. This is because higher volume and velocity of water runoff, which can also contribute to
longer streams have more time to collect and transport sediment, as erosion [39].
water flows more slowly in them, allowing sediment to settle out of the In the study area, the result stream length ratio (SLR) varies from
water column and be carried downstream. The total stream length de­ 0.48 (SW12) to 1.13 (SW14) among sub-watersheds, as shown in
creases with increasing stream order, i.e., first-order streams have the Table 2. This ratio reveals how efficiently water is transported. A high
longest lengths and last-order streams have the shortest lengths. This ratio (more length in lower order streams) indicates slower flow and
finding is consistent with previous studies by Refs. [62,69]. potential infiltration, reducing erosion. Conversely, a low stream length
ratio shows rapid water movement and increased erosion risk. Similarly,
3.1.2. Linear characteristics of the dabus watershed bifurcation ratio (Br) value ranges from 1.57 to 2.77. There is a higher
Watersheds with higher stream length ratio, bifurcation ratio, and density of streams and channels in the sub-watershed with a high SLR.
drainage density indicate a higher density of streams and channels, Because there is a larger probability of suspended sediment settling out
which can increase the likelihood of erosion. Similarly, watersheds with in these sub-watersheds, the transportation of silt materials that can
higher stream frequency and longer lengths of overland flow indicate a cause further erosion is prevented. Sub-watershed 13 (SW 13) has high
higher volume and velocity watersheds that have a higher potential for bifurcation ratios, which means it has more dendritic drainage patterns,
soil erosion based on their drainage patterns and flow characteristics. perhaps leading to faster water collection and higher erosive power, yet
Watersheds with higher stream length ratio, bifurcation ratio, and a tiny area of the Dabus watershed to the north-west is less prone to soil
drainage density indicate a higher density of streams and channels, erosion based on the rank of Br. [70,71]; and [72] also used morpho­
which can increase the likelihood of erosion. Similarly, watersheds with metric analysis and GIS to prioritize erosion-prone areas. Their findings

8
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Table 2
Stream number and stream length of each sub-watershed.
Sub watershed Stream order Vs (Stream Number and length)

I II III IV V Total

Sn Sl Sn Sl Sn Sl Sn Sl Sn Sl Sn Sl

SW 1 145 407.2 73 237.0 36 110.9 34 71.17 0 288 826.2

SW 2 19 63.7 10 32.9 8 23.1 0 0 37 119.8
SW 3 121 444.5 58 218.2 37 120.3 20 51 0 236 834.0
SW 4 98 315.4 41 144.2 30 111.1 16 47.6 9 37.0 194 655.1
SW 5 29 88.3 13 52.7 8 46.8 4 8.4 0 54 196.2
SW 6 57 202.0 30 128.1 15 23.7 11 24.3 0 113 378.1
SW 7 132 525.8 77 314.2 29 132.8 11 39.6 12 35.5 261 1047.9
SW 8 9 41.7 4 15.4 4 3.7 0 0 17 60.8
SW 9 17 65.0 11 52.0 3 6.0 1 1 0 32 124.0
SW 10 93 250.1 48 172.7 29 76.3 9 33.1 6 13.9 185 546.1
SW 11 30 94.9 14 41.1 14 31.7 0 0 58 167.8
SW 12 6 25.2 4 15.4 1 0.2 0 0 11 40.7
SW 13 46 176.3 20 63.5 20 66.0 4 5.4 0 90 311.1
SW 14 18 56.5 11 35.8 6 24.0 0 0 35 116.2
Total 820 2756.5 414 1523.1 240 776.5 110 281.5 27 86.4 1611 5424.0
Percent (%) 50.9 50.8 25.7 28.1 14.9 14.3 6.8 5.2 1.7 1.6 100

suggest that land managers can use these parameters and other infor­ All sub-watersheds in the Dabus watershed have very coarse
mation to prioritize these areas for erosion control efforts and allocate drainage texture, with SW12 and SW7 having the lowest and highest
resources more efficiently to mitigate soil erosion and protect the drainage texture values, respectively. Water tends to spread out and flow
landscape. through a more sinuous and complex network of streams (high Dt) in
According to Refs. [73,74]; high drainage density is caused by weak area with gentle slope (SW 7) and readily entering soils. This means
or impermeable underlying material, mountainous terrain, and sparse slower runoff and a lesser risk of soil erosion. Consistently [74], rec­
vegetation. The low drainage density is caused by extremely permeable ommended that climate, rainfall, vegetation cover, geology, soil type,
underlying material beneath dense vegetation and low relief. Lower Dd slope, infiltration rate, sub-basin size, and perimeters be considered
value (i.e., 0.33 km/km2) is found in Sub-watershed 10 (Table 3), which when assessing drainage texture in sub-basins, as these factors have a
has an extremely permeable soil, low terrain, little runoff, and high significant impact on drainage density.
infiltration capacity. This morphometric parameter can also reflect how Overall, linear parameters such as stream frequency, length of
efficiently a watershed drains water, because it refers to the total length overland flow, drainage density, and drainage texture can give infor­
of streams and channels per unit area of a watershed. Stream frequency mation to decision-makers for devloping and implementing appropriate
(Fs) reflects the number of streams (Nu) in a watershed per unit area. soil conservation measures. These parameters also provide vital insights
This indicates that Fs and Dd are positive correlated, with higher Dd into a watershed’s hydrological behaviour and vulnerability to soil
often resulting in higher Fs due to the presence of more stream channels. erosion, enabling targeted and efficient protection strategies. Land
Table 3 and Fig. 7 reveal that SW 7 has the highest Dd, Dt and Lolf, with managers can develop effective seasonal soil degradation control pro­
values of 0.410 km/km2, 0.88 km-1, and 1.219 km. This illustrates that, grammes that target specific areas and address the root causes of erosion
areas with steep slopes and impermeable soils often have high drainage by combining these parameters with other morphometric parameters, as
density and stream frequency due to rapid surface runoff, as previously emphasized by Ref. [77].
noted by Ref. [75]. However, there is an indirect relationship between
drainage density and overland flow length. This means that when 3.1.3. Areal characteristics of the dabus watershed
drainage density increases, the length of overland flow reduces, and vice Four areal parameters such as basin length, form factor, circularity
versa. Low Lolf sub-watersheds are more prone to soil erosion, as well as ratio, and elongation ratio can be used to characterize watersheds and
shorter flow paths, more runoff, and less infiltration, especially during identify areas susceptible to soil erosion. Basin length (Lb) is the mea­
heavy rains. This is similar to the conclusion of [60,76] (see Table 4). surement of the distance from the outlet of a watershed to the division of

Table 3
Stream length and bifurcation ratio of the study area.
Sub Watershed Lsr Br Lsr Br Lsr Br Lsr Br Average

II/I I/II III/II II/III IV/III III/IV V/IV IV/V Lsr Br

SW 1 0.58 1.99 0.95 2.03 0.68 1.06 0.74 1.69

SW 2 0.98 1.90 0.88 1.25 _ 0.93 1.58
SW 3 1.02 2.09 0.86 1.57 0.78 1.85 _ 0.89 1.83
SW 4 1.09 2.39 1.05 1.37 0.80 1.88 1.38 1.78 1.08 1.85
SW 5 1.33 2.23 1.44 1.63 0.36 2.00 _ 1.04 1.95
SW 6 1.20 1.90 0.37 2.00 1.40 1.36 _ 0.99 1.75
SW 7 1.02 1.71 1.12 2.66 0.79 2.64 0.82 0.92 0.94 1.98
SW 8 0.83 2.25 0.24 1.00 _ _ 0.54 1.63
SW 9 1.24 1.55 0.42 3.67 0.50 3.00 _ 0.72 2.74
SW 10 1.34 1.94 0.73 1.66 1.40 3.22 0.63 1.50 1.02 2.08
SW 11 0.93 2.14 0.77 1.00 _ _ 0.85 1.57
SW 12 0.91 1.50 0.04 4.00 0.48 2.75
SW 13 0.83 2.30 1.04 1.00 0.41 5.00 0.76 2.77
SW 14 1.04 1.64 1.23 1.83 1.13 1.73
Average 1.03 1.97 0.80 1.90 0.79 2.45 0.94 1.40 0.87 1.99

9
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 7. Linear morphometric parameters priority rank maps

*D, Dt, Sf, and Lolf are drainage density, drainage texture stream frequency, and length of overland flow respectively.

the basin along the main channel. As shown in Fig. 8, the longest basin smaller Ff values, while circular basins have intermediate Ff values close
length in the Dabus sub-watersheds is 113.1 km (SW7) and the shortest to one, and short-wide basins have the largest Ff values [78]. Addi­
is 18.43 km (SW13). The longer basin will have a longer lag time, tionally [73], found that basins with higher Ff values exhibit flatter peak
meaning that it will take longer for water to reach the outlet of the basin flows that last for longer durations. This study observed Ff values
after a rainfall event. Shorter basins generally have shorter lag times ranging from 0.2 to 0.308, indicating predominantly elongated basins.
compared to longer basins. This is because the distance water needs to The circularity ratio (Cr) is another important factor in analyzing basin
travel from the farthest reaches of the basin to the outlet is shorter. shape and provides insights into the hydrological structure of a drainage
Similarly, the form factor (Ff) is a numerical parameter used to basin. Cr values in this study ranged from 0.143 to 0.363, further sup­
describe the shape of a basin. Elongated basins have longer lengths and porting the elongated nature of the watersheds. The circularity ratio is

10
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Table 4
The summary of linear morphometric parameters.
Sub watershed Area (km2) Perimeter (km) Drainage density (Dd) Drainage texture (Dt) Stream frequency (Sf) Length of over land flow (Lolf)

SW 1 2390.75 448.09 0.346 0.643 0.1200 1.460

SW 2 333.44 140.61 0.359 0.260 0.1110 1.392
SW 3 2213.87 334.75 0.380 0.710 0.1070 1.320
SW 4 1899.07 397.83 0.340 0.490 0.1020 1.449
SW 5 552.22 552.22 0.360 0.280 0.0980 1.408
SW 6 949 204.47 0.400 0.550 0.1190 1.255
SW 7 2555.77 297.44 0.410 0.880 0.1030 1.219
SW 8 164.89 78.23 0.370 0.220 0.0960 1.356
SW 9 328.72 135.32 0.380 0.240 0.1130 1.325
SW 10 1642.71 317.45 0.330 0.580 0.1260 1.504
SW 11 458.82 188.08 0.370 0.310 0.1090 1.367
SW 12 105.39 73.36 0.390 0.150 0.1040 1.294
SW 13 865.00 276.09 0.360 0.330 0.1040 1.400
SW 14 334.16 139.99 0.350 0.250 0.1080 1.437

Fig. 8. Area parameters of Dabus watershed.

calculated by comparing the diameter of a circle with the same size as parameters such as basin relief, relief ratio, ruggedness number, and
the drainage basin to the longest possible length of the basin (B. C [79]. relative relief are physical characteristics of a watershed that can be
Higher Cr values suggest circular watersheds with moderate to high used to assess its susceptibility to erosion [83]. also emphasized the
relief and permeable surfaces, leading to less time for surface runoff to importance of understanding relief parameters and soil erosion re­
infiltrate the ground. Conversely, lower Cr values indicate impermeable lationships for watershed managers, agriculturalists, and environmental
surfaces with low relief and a longer concentration time for surface experts to develop effective structural and non-structural strategies for
runoff. Additionally, the elongation ratio (Er) provides further insight soil erosion prevention and mitigation.
into basin shape and can be categorized as less elongated (<0.7), oval Basin relief (Rb) is the vertical difference between the highest and
(0.7–0.9), or circular (>0.9) [13]. As Er values increase, basins become lowest elevations within a watershed. The relationship between basin
more circular and prone to flooding due to shorter concentration times, relief and soil erosion in a watershed is complex and can vary depending
and vice versa. Previous studies conducted in various watersheds in on various factors. Sub-watershed 7 (Fig. 9) has high basin relief, which
Ethiopia have utilized morphometric analysis to prioritize watershed refers to the difference in elevation between the highest and lowest
management. For instance Ref. [52], emphasized the importance of points in a basin. This high basin relief can contribute to increased soil
areal parameters in characterizing the study area for prioritizing soil erosion by combined factors such as drainage density, topography, and
erosion control in the Genale Dawa basin, Ethiopia. Similarly [62], slope. This area may require targeted management strategies to mitigate
highlighted the significant correlation between soil erosion and basin soil erosion and preserve soil resources. This is because steeper slopes
length, form factor, circularity ratio, and elongation ratio in the Gidabo associated with higher relief can lead to faster surface runoff, which in
Basin, located in the Southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia [39,80]. also found turn can cause greater erosion and sediment transport as per the findings
significant correlations between soil erosion and stream order, basin of [81] and Amare et al. (2020). The ratio of basin relief to longest
length, and basin perimeter in the Didessa and Jema Sub-Basin, dimension (Rr) shows that some areas in the northeastern part of the
Ethiopia. study area have the highest Rr, such as SW8, while one sub-watershed in
the southern part of the Dabus (i.e., SW3) has the lowest Rr. This
3.1.4. Relief parameters of dabus watershed parameter measures the overall steepness of a watershed, and it is
Basin relief, an important morphometric parameter for character­ directly related to the susceptibility of a watershed to soil erosion.
izing watershed drainage patterns and topography, is also used by Watersheds with high Rr values are more susceptible to soil erosion than
watershed managers to develop and implement watershed management watersheds with low Rr values.
plans. According to Refs. [80,81]; and [82]; understanding relief pa­ Sub-watershed 7 in the Dabus watershed has the highest values for
rameters can be used to better identify areas at risk of soil erosion. Relief all relief parameters, including basin relief, relief ratio, ruggedness

11
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 9. Relief morphometric parameters priority rank maps

*Rr, Rb, Rn, Rr’ is relief ratio, basin relief, ruggedness number, and relative relief respectively.

number, and relative relief. However, this relationship is not constant example, a study area with loose, erodible soils may experience higher
across different study areas. In other study areas, the sub-watersheds erosion rates even with lower relief parameters, while a study area with
with the highest values for one or more relief parameters in one study resistant soils may show a weaker correlation between relief parameters
area may not have the highest values for all relief parameters in other and erosion. Additionally, rainfall may infiltrate more easily into
study areas, as shown in previous studies [62,71,74]. Overall, the rela­ low-relief areas, reducing erosion. Therefore, understanding these fac­
tionship between relief parameters and soil erosion varies across study tors and their relationships with relief parameters is essential for
areas due to several factors, including geological and geomorphological developing effective soil erosion management strategies in specific study
characteristics, climate, human activities, and land use/cover [22]. For areas [49].

12
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

3.2. Overall sub-watershed prioritization using compound values of categorized the Didessa and Jema sub-watersheds into high, medium,
morphometric parameters and low priority, based on compound values of less than 2.55, 2.55 to
3.55, and greater than 3.55, respectively. The highest compound value
Watershed prioritization based on morphometric parameters is a in the Dabus watershed is 9.67, which is found in SW8 (Fig. 10).
useful tool for identifying sub-watersheds that are at high risk of soil According to the study results, three sub-watersheds (SW1, SW7, and
erosion. No individual morphometric parameter can fully explain the SW10) are prioritized as very high-priority areas due to their high relief,
level of erosion vulnerability of sub-watersheds. This is because soil steep slopes, sparse vegetation, low infiltration, and high runoff
erosion is a complex process that is influenced by a variety of factors, discharge. Immediate soil and water conservation measures are needed
including climate, geology, land use, and management practices. As a to protect topsoil loss in sub-watersheds with high erosion susceptibility,
result, the compound value of morphometric parameters is a more such as contour binding, bench terracing, gully control structures, and
comprehensive measure of a watershed’s erosion vulnerability. It is grass waterways. These measures can prevent water runoff and soil
calculated by combining the values of multiple morphometric parame­ erosion by reducing the speed of water flow, controlling gully erosion,
ters and rank according to their relative importance as stated by Refs. and retaining sediment [87,88]. Four sub-watersheds (SW6, SW4, SW3,
[68,84]. Overall compound values can be employed to reduce soil and SW13) require soil and water conservation measures, strip cropping,
erosion; however, prediction of future tackling soil rates in the water­ and mixed cropping to minimize the high soil erosion. Two
shed should be evaluated [85]. sub-watersheds (SW5 and SW11) and five sub-watersheds (SW2, SW8,
In this study, the watershed is categorized into four priority cate­ SW9, SW12, and SW14) are moderate and low-priority sub-watersheds,
gories according to their compound value i.e., very high (≤5.5), high respectively as shown in Fig. 11. Agronomical measures such as contour
(5.5–6.51), medium (6.51–7.5), and low (≥7.51). The ranges for the farming, mulching practices, and strip cropping can be implemented in
vulnerability categories can vary from watershed to watershed. For medium-priority sub-watersheds to protect the area from soil erosion.
example [86], classified the Upper catchment into high, medium, and The specific soil and water conservation measures implemented in each
low priority for soil erosion management, based on compound values of sub-watershed will vary depending on its unique characteristics and
less than 6.5, 6.5 to 7.5, and greater than 7.5, respectively [39]. also conditions. Relevant authorities and local experts need to consider the

Fig. 10. The figure shows the estimated compound value and rank for each sub-watershed.

13
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

Fig. 11. Priority class based on compound value.

priority areas identified based on morphometric parameters and specific were identified based on this information. Moreover, to assess the
area information. First, experts should observe the specific area and overall soil erosion potential of a watershed, a compound value is
provide their recommendations based on their knowledge and experi­ calculated by combining the values of multiple morphometric parame­
ence in correlating the identified area using morphometric parameters. ters, including basic parameters (area, perimeter, stream length, and
By considering morphometric parameters, specific area information, stream order), areal parameters (basin length, form factor, circularity
and expert advice, authorities can effectively implement soil and water ratio, and elongation ratio), relief parameters (basin relief, relief ratio,
conservation measures that will help protect and sustain these vital relative relief, and ruggedness number), and linear parameters (stream
resources. length ratio, bifurcation ratio, drainage density, and drainage texture).
The study area was classified into four priority zones: very high, high,
4. Conclusion medium, and low, based on compound values less than 5.5, 5.5 to 6.5,
6.51 to 7.5, and greater than 7.5, respectively. Sub-watersheds SW1,
Natural and human activities that cause soil erosion in a watershed SW7, and SW10 in the study area, covering 2390.75 km2, 2213.8 km2,
can significantly impact water resource projects and harm a country’s and 1642.71 km2, respectively, are classified as very high priority areas
economy by reducing agricultural productivity. Increased soil erosion in for soil erosion prevention, while sub-watersheds SW6, SW4, SW3, and
the Dabus watershed will cause problems in both upstream and down­ SW13, covering 949 km2, 1899.07 km2, 2213.87 km2, and 865 km2,
stream areas, including the GERD dam, due to the accumulation of large respectively, are high priority areas. Only three sub-watersheds are
volumes of sediment. We characterized and prioritized sub-watersheds categorized as low priority for soil erosion. Immediate management
with high soil erosion potential based on their priority ranks, to un­ solutions must be implemented in very high and high-priority sub-wa­
derstand the patterns of soil erosion. GIS and mathematical computation tersheds to reduce the risk of soil loss. Remote sensing and GIS can be
formulas were used to estimate the basic, areal, relief, and linear pa­ used together to quantify soil erosion rates at different levels and
rameters of each sub-watershed, including shape, elevation, slope, and identify areas at risk of erosion. The use of 12.5 m resolution data may
stream network, to assess the soil erosion potential of each sub- have constrained the precision and specificity of the calculated
watershed. The sub-watersheds that are most at risk of soil erosion morphometric parameters, possibly resulting in the underestimation or

14
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

mischaracterization of areas susceptible to erosion. Consequently, [15] J. Okoli, H. Nahazanan, F. Nahas, B. Kalantar, H.Z.M. Shafri, Z. Khuzaimah, High-
resolution lidar-derived DEM for landslide susceptibility assessment using AHP and
additional rstudies are recommended to employ higher resolution DEM
fuzzy logic in Serdang, Malaysia, Geosciences 13 (2) (2023) 34.
data than 12.5 m to enhance accuracy for conservation endeavors, [16] K. Valkanou, E. Karymbalis, D. Papanastassiou, M. Soldati, C. Chalkias, K. Gaki-
obtain more precise physical information for more reliable simulations Papanastassiou, Assessment of neotectonic landscape deformation in Evia Island,
of sediment yield, and capture enhanced detail that can provide a more Greece, using GIS-based multi-criteria analysis, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 10 (3) (2021)
118.
realistic representation of fine-scale features such as small gullies, [17] S.G. Meshram, V.P. Singh, E. Kahya, M. Sepehri, C. Meshram, M.A. Hasan, S. Islam,
ridges, and ephemeral streams, which are crucial for understanding P.A. Duc, Assessing erosion prone areas in a watershed using interval rough-
erosion patterns. Once the soil erosion potential of each sub-watershed analytical hierarchy process (IR-AHP) and fuzzy logic (FL), Stoch. Environ. Res.
Risk Assess. (2022) 1–16.
has been assessed, land managers can develop targeted strategies to [18] N.M. Alam, C. Jana, D. Mandal, S.K. Meena, S.S. Shrimali, U. Mandal, S. Mitra,
reduce soil erosion and protect water resources. G. Kar, Applying analytic hierarchy process for identifying best management
practices in erosion risk areas of northwestern Himalayas, Land 11 (6) (2022) 832.
[19] S. Saha, A. Gayen, H.R. Pourghasemi, J.P. Tiefenbacher, Identification of soil
CRediT authorship contribution statement erosion-susceptible areas using fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process
modeling in an agricultural watershed of Burdwan district, India, Environ. Earth
Ayana Asrat Duressa: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Sci. 78 (2019) 1–18.
[20] H. Sahour, V. Gholami, M. Vazifedan, S. Saeedi, Machine learning applications for
original draft. Tolera Abdissa Feyissa: Investigation, Supervision, water-induced soil erosion modeling and mapping, Soil Tillage Res. 211 (2021),
Visualization. Nasir Gebi Tukura: Investigation, Supervision, Valida­ 105032.
tion. Beekan Gurmessa Gudeta: Data curation, Methodology, Soft­ [21] S. Altaf, G. Meraj, S.A. Romshoo, Morphometry and land cover based multi-criteria
analysis for assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan
ware. Gadefa Fekadu Gechelu: Data curation, Methodology, Software.
watershed, Environ. Monit. Assess. 186 (12) (2014) 8391–8412, https://doi.org/
Takele Sambeto Bibi: Methodology, Software, Writing - review & 10.1007/s10661-014-4012-2.
editing. [22] P. Haokip, M.A. Khan, P. Choudhari, L.C. Kulimushi, I. Qaraev, Identification of
erosion-prone areas using morphometric parameters, land use land cover and
multi-criteria decision-making method: geo-informatics approach, Environ. Dev.
Declaration of competing interest Sustain. 24 (1) (2022) 527–557.
[23] N.L. Kushwaha, A. Yousuf, Soil erosion risk mapping of watersheds using RUSLE,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial remote sensing and GIS: a review, Res. J. Agric. For. Sci. 8 (2) (2017) 269–277.
[24] D.C. Jhariya, T. Kumar, H.K. Pandey, Watershed prioritization based on soil and
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence water hazard model using remote sensing, geographical information system and
the work reported in this paper. multi-criteria decision analysis approach, Geocarto Int. 35 (2) (2020) 188–208.
[25] A.K. Kadam, T.H. Jaweed, S.S. Kale, B.N. Umrikar, R.N. Sankhua, Identification of
erosion-prone areas using modified morphometric prioritization method and
Data availability sediment production rate: a remote sensing and GIS approach, Geomatics, Nat.
Hazards Risk 10 (1) (2019) 986–1006, https://doi.org/10.1080/
Data will be made available on request. 19475705.2018.1555189.
[26] S.G. Meshram, V.P. Singh, E. Kahya, E. Alvandi, C. Meshram, S.K. Sharma, The
feasibility of multi-criteria decision making approach for prioritization of sensitive
References area at risk of water erosion, Water Resour. Manag. 34 (2020) 4665–4685.
[27] A. Perera, U. Rathnayake, Impact of climate variability on hydropower generation
[1] A. Hossain, T.J. Krupnik, J. Timsina, M.G. Mahboob, A.K. Chaki, M. Farooq, in an un-gauged catchment: Erathna run-of-the-river hydropower plant, Sri Lanka,
R. Bhatt, S. Fahad, M. Hasanuzzaman, Agricultural land degradation: processes and Appl. Water Sci. 9 (3) (2019) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0925-9.
problems undermining future food security, in: Environment, Climate, Plant and [28] B. Khaniya, C. Karunanayake, M.B. Gunathilake, U. Rathnayake, Projection of
Vegetation Growth, Springer, 2020, pp. 17–61. future hydropower generation in samanalawewa power plant , Sri Lanka, Math.
[2] P. Blaikie, The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries, Probl Eng. 2020 (2020) 1–11.
Routledge, 2016. [29] M. Belayneh, T. Yirgu, D. Tsegaye, Potential soil erosion estimation and area
[3] J.B. Bashagaluke, V. Logah, A. Opoku, J. Sarkodie-Addo, C. Quansah, Soil nutrient prioritization for better conservation planning in Gumara watershed using RUSLE
loss through erosion: impact of different cropping systems and soil amendments in and GIS techniques’, Environ. Syst. Res. 8 (1) (2019) https://doi.org/10.1186/
Ghana, PLoS One 13 (12) (2018), e0208250. s40068-019-0149-x.
[4] D. Wuepper, P. Borrelli, R. Finger, Countries and the global rate of soil erosion, [30] T. Gashaw, A.W. Worqlul, Y.T. Dile, S. Addisu, A. Bantider, G. Zeleke, Evaluating
Nat. Sustain. 3 (1) (2020) 51–55. potential impacts of land management practices on soil erosion in the Gilgel Abay
[5] S.B. Wassie, Natural resource degradation tendencies in Ethiopia: a review, watershed, upper Blue Nile basin, Heliyon 6 (8) (2020).
Environ. Syst. Res. 9 (1) (2020) 1–29. [31] T.A. Duguma, Soil erosion risk assessment and treatment priority classification: a
[6] I. Rashmi, K.S. Karthika, T. Roy, K.C. Shinoji, A. Kumawat, S. Kala, R. Pal, Soil case study on guder watersheds, Abay River Basin, Oromia, Ethiopia, Heliyon 8 (8)
Erosion and sediments: a source of contamination and impact on agriculture (2022), e10183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10183.
productivity, in: Agrochemicals in Soil and Environment: Impacts and [32] S. Kebede, F. Fufa, Estimation of average annual soil loss rates and its prioritization
Remediation, Springer, 2022, pp. 313–345. at sub-watershed level using RUSLE: A case of Finca’aa, Oromiya, Western
[7] B.U. Choudhury, G. Nengzouzam, M.A. Ansari, A. Islam, Causes and consequences Ethiopia, Environ. Health Eng. Manag. J. 10 (1) (2023) 41–50.
of soil erosion in northeastern Himalaya, India, Curr. Sci. 122 (7) (2022) 772–789. [33] N. Haregeweyn, A. Tsunekawa, J. Poesen, M. Tsubo, D.T. Meshesha, A.A. Fenta,
[8] R. Bhattacharyya, B.N. Ghosh, P.K. Mishra, B. Mandal, C.S. Rao, D. Sarkar, K. Das, J. Nyssen, E. Adgo, Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk for better land
K.S. Anil, M. Lalitha, K.M. Hati, others, Soil degradation in India: challenges and use planning in river basins: Case study of the Upper Blue Nile River, Sci. Total
potential solutions, Sustainability 7 (4) (2015) 3528–3570. Environ. 574 (2017) 95–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.019.
[9] S.O. Garcia, V.S. Santillan, V.B. Vivier, M. Anglés-Hernández, M.E. Pérez, B. Prado, [34] G. Tiruneh, M. Ayalew, Soil loss estimation using geographic information system in
Soil governance and sustainable agriculture in Mexico, Soil Security 7 (2022), enfraz watershed for soil conservation planning in highlands of Ethiopia, Int. J.
100059. Agric. Res. Innovat. Technol. 5 (2) (2016) 21–30, https://doi.org/10.3329/ijarit.
[10] T.S. Bibi, E.A. Adem, others, Evaluation of best management practices to reduce v5i2.26265.
sediment yield in the upper Gilo watershed, Baro akobo basin, Ethiopia using [35] Y.S.A. Ali, The Impact of Soil Erosion in the Upper Blue Nile on Downstream
SWAT, Heliyon 9 (10) (2023). Reservoir Sedimentation, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Citeseer, 2014.
[11] H. Mwanake, B. Mehdi-Schulz, K. Schulz, N. Kitaka, L.O. Olang, J. Lederer, [36] A.A. Ayalew, The impact of soil erosion and sedimentation on life span of lake,
M. Herrnegger, Agricultural practices and soil and water conservation in the reservoir and dam in Ethiopia, Accelerat. World’s Res. (2021).
transboundary region of Kenya and Uganda: farmers’ perspectives of current soil [37] D. Teklemariam, S. Lanckriet, H. Azadi, T.G. Asfaha, M. Haile, F. Witlox, J. Nyssen,
erosion, Agriculture 13 (7) (2023) 1434. Effects of land deals on peak discharge and sediment transport in the catchments
[12] M. Dieng, C. Mbow, D.L. Skole, B. Ba, Sustainable land management policy to around the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, Land Degradat. \& Develop. 28 (6)
address land degradation: linking old forest management practices in Senegal with (2017) 1852–1861.
new REDD+ requirements, Front. Environ. Sci. (2023). [38] G. Ayele, E.Z. Teshale, A. Ababa, I.D. Rutherfurd, J. Jeong, Streamflow and
[13] A. Kumar, S. Singh, M. Pramanik, S. Chaudhary, A.K. Maurya, M. Kumar, Sediment Yield Prediction for Watershed Prioritization in the Upper Blue Nile
Watershed prioritization for soil erosion mapping in the Lesser Himalayan Indian River Basin , Ethiopia, October, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100782.
basin using PCA and WSA methods in conjunction with morphometric parameters [39] G. Debelo, K. Tadele, S.A. Koriche, Morphometric analysis to identify erosion prone
and GIS-based approach, Environ. Dev. Sustain. (2022) 1–39. areas on the upper blue nile using Gis (case study of Didessa and Jema Sub-Basin,
[14] B. Tsegaye, Effect of land use and land cover changes on soil erosion in Ethiopia, Ethiopia), Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4 (8) (2017) 1773–1784.
Int. J. Agric Sci. Food Technol. 5 (1) (2019) 26–34. [40] N.B. Mangel, Evaluation of Watershed Characteristics on Sediment Yield and
Streamflow in Dabus River, Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia, MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Ethiopia, 2021.

15
A.A. Duressa et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101712

[41] T.S. Steenhuis, S.A. Tilahun, Z.K. Tesemma, T.Y. Tebebu, M. Moges, F.A. Zimale, A. [65] P.R. Shekar, A. Mathew, A. Ps, V.P. Gopi, Sub-watershed prioritization using
W. Worqlul, M.L. Alemu, E.K. Ayana, Y.A. Mohamed, Soil erosion and discharge in morphometric analysis, principal component analysis, hypsometric analysis, land
the Blue Nile Basin: trends and challenges, Nile River Basin: Ecohydrological use/land cover analysis, and machine learning approaches in the Peddavagu River
Challenges, Climate Change Hydropolit. (2014) 133–147. Basin, India, J. Water Climate Change 14 (7) (2023).
[42] D. Kidane, B. Alemu, The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion and [66] P. Sarkar, P. Kumar, D.K. Vishwakarma, A. Ashok, A. Elbeltagi, S. Gupta, A. Kuriqi,
sedimentation in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia, Res. J. Agricult. Environ. Watershed prioritization using morphometric analysis by MCDM approaches, Ecol.
Manag. 4 (2) (2015) 55–68. Informat. 70 (2022), 101763.
[43] T. Belay, D.A. Mengistu, Impacts of land use/land cover and climate changes on [67] A.N. Strahler, Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel
soil erosion in Muga watershed, Upper Blue Nile basin (Abay), Ethiopia, Ecological networks. Handbook of Applied Hydrology, 1964.
Processes 10 (1) (2021) 1–23. [68] P. Arulbalaji, D. Padmalal, Sub-watershed prioritization based on drainage
[44] W. Abtew, S.B. Dessu, W. Abtew, S.B. Dessu, Hydrology of the blue Nile Basin morphometric analysis: a case study of cauvery River Basin in South India, J. Geol.
overview, Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Blue Nile (2019) 39–62. Societ. India 95 (1) (2020) 25–35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-020-1383-6.
[45] B. Kemal, D. Adeba, Surface water potential assessment and water demand [69] S.G. Meshram, S.K. Sharma, Prioritization of watershed through morphometric
evaluation (A case of dabus watershed, blue Nile Basin), Computat. Water Energy parameters: a PCA-based approach, Appl. Water Sci. 7 (3) (2017) 1505–1519,
Environ. Eng. 10 (4) (2021) 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0332-9.
[46] N.B. Mangel, Evaluation of Watershed Characteristics On Sediment Yield And [70] M.L. Waikar, A.P. Nilawar, Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using
Streamflow In Dabus River, Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Science and geographical information system: a case study, Int. J. Multidiscip. Curr. Res. 2
Technology University, 2021. (2014) (2014) 179–184.
[47] B. Benzougagh, S.G. Meshram, A. Dridri, L. Boudad, B. Baamar, D. Sadkaoui, K. [71] S. Gajbhiye, S.K.M. Ashish, Prioritizing erosion-prone area through morphometric
M. Khedher, Identification of critical watershed at risk of soil erosion using analysis : an RS and GIS perspective, Appl. Water Sci. 4 (2014) 51–61, https://doi.
morphometric and geographic information system analysis, Appl. Water Sci. 12 (1) org/10.1007/s13201-013-0129-7.
(2022) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01532-z. [72] S. Soni, Assessment of morphometric characteristics of Chakrar watershed in
[48] R.E. Horton, Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; Madhya Pradesh India using geospatial technique, Appl. Water Sci. 7 (2017)
hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology, Geol. Societ. America 2089–2102.
Bulletin 56 (3) (1945) 275–370. [73] P.P. Choudhari, G.K. Nigam, S.K. Singh, S. Thakur, Morphometric based
[49] A. Arabameri, J.P. Tiefenbacher, T. Blaschke, B. Pradhan, D. Tien Bui, prioritization of watershed for groundwater potential of Mula River Basin,
Morphometric analysis for soil erosion susceptibility mapping using novel GIS- Maharashtra, India, Geology, Ecol. Landscapes 2 (4) (2018) 256–267, https://doi.
based ensemble model, Remote Sensing 12 (5) (2020) 874. org/10.1080/24749508.2018.1452482.
[50] A.N. Strahler, Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology, Eos, Transact. [74] V. Shreedhara, K. Shankar, M. Haji, A morphometric analysis of wonji drainage
American Geophysical Union 38 (6) (1957) 913–920, https://doi.org/10.1029/ basins around central Rift Valley , Ethiopia , using geospatial tools, Int. J. Sci. Res.
TR038I006P00913. (IJSR) 9 (8) (2020) 787–794, https://doi.org/10.21275/SR20805151251.
[51] D. Das, Identification of erosion prone areas by morphometric analysis using GIS, [75] Y. Farhan, O. Anaba, A. Salim, Morphometric analysis and flash floods assessment
J. Institut. Engineers (India): Series A 95 (1) (2014) 61–74, https://doi.org/ for drainage basins of the Ras En Naqb area, South Jordan using GIS. Applied
10.1007/s40030-014-0069-8. Morphometry and Watershed Management Using RS, GIS and Multivariate
[52] N.G. Tukura, M.M. Akalu, M. Hussein, A. Befekadu, Morphometric analysis and Statistics, Case Studies), 2017, p. 413.
sub-watershed prioritization of Welmal watershed, Ganale-Dawa River Basin, [76] S. Cheruku, G. Prabhakar, U.R. Boddu, Morphological Characteristics of
Ethiopia: implications for sediment erosion, J. Sediment. Environ. 6 (1) (2021) Kanthatmakur Vagu Watershed of Warangal District: Using Geographical
121–130, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43217-020-00039-y. Information System, 2023 (GIS).
[53] V.C. Miller, Quantitative Geomorphic Study of Drainage Basin Characteristics in [77] I.D. Diallo, A. Tilioua, C. Darraz, A. Alali, D. Sidibe, Study and analysis of seasonal
the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee. Technical Report, No. 3, soil degradation in Lower Guinea and Forest Guinea, Results Eng. 19 (August)
Columbia University. Department of Geology, 1953, 10.3/JQUERY-UI.JS. (2023), 101381, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101381.
[54] A.G. Gela, Watershed prioritization using morphometric analysis & RUSLE model [78] N. Dali, O.R. Ziouch, H. Dali, T. Daifallah, B. Cherifa, H. Sara, Remote sensing, and
for soil conservation planning , in Gilgel Abay watershed, Ethiopia (2018) 1–21. (GIS) approach, for morphometric assessment and sub-watershed prioritization
[55] R.K. Bhattacharya, N. Das Chatterjee, P. Acharya, K. Das, Morphometric analysis to according to soil erosion and groundwater potential in an endorheic semi-arid area
characterize the soil erosion susceptibility in the western part of lower Gangetic of Algeria, Arabian J. Geosci. 16 (1) (2023) 95.
River basin, India, Arabian J. Geosci. 14 (6) (2021) 501. [79] B.C. Das, A. Islam, B. Sarkar, Drainage basin shape indices to understanding
[56] F. Ahmed, K.S. Rao, Prioritization of Sub-watersheds based on Morphometric channel hydraulics, Water Resources Manag. 36 (8) (2022) 2523–2547.
Analysis using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System Techniques 4 [80] T. Muluneh, W. Mamo, Morphometric analysis of Didessa River catchment in blue
(2) (2015) 51–65. Nile Basin, western Ethiopia, Science, Technol. Arts Res. J. 3 (3) (2014), https://
[57] S.A. Rahaman, S.A. Ajeez, S. Aruchamy, R. Jegankumar, Prioritization of sub doi.org/10.4314/STAR.V3I3.31. African Journals Online (AJOL).
watershed based on morphometric characteristics using fuzzy analytical hierarchy [81] F.G. Tufa, T.A. Feyissa, Morphometric analysis of Kito and awetu sub basins
process and geographical information system–A study of Kallar Watershed, Tamil Jimma, Ethiopia, Am. J. Water Sci. Eng. 4 (3) (2018) 80–90.
Nadu, Aquatic Procedia 4 (2015) 1322–1330. [82] B.G. Tassew, M.A. Belete, K. Miegel, Assessment and analysis of morphometric
[58] V. Simonneaux, A. Cheggour, C. Deschamps, F. Mouillot, O. Cerdan, Y. Le characteristics of lake Tana sub-basin, upper blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia, Int. J. River
Bissonnais, Land use and climate change effects on soil erosion in a semi-arid Basin Management 21 (2) (2023) 195–209.
mountainous watershed (High Atlas, Morocco), J. Arid Environ. 122 (2015) 64–75. [83] M. Jothimani, A. Abebe, Z. Dawit, Mapping of soil erosion-prone sub-watersheds
[59] R. Kumar, A. Kumar, P. Saikia, Deforestation and forests degradation impacts on through drainage morphometric analysis and weighted sum approach: a case study
the environment, in: Environmental Degradation: Challenges and Strategies for of the Kulfo River basin, Rift valley, Arba Minch, Southern Ethiopia, Modeling
Mitigation, Springer, 2022, pp. 19–46. Earth Systems and Environment 6 (4) (2020) 2377–2389, https://doi.org/
[60] W.R. Singh, S. Barman, G. Tirkey, Morphometric analysis and watershed 10.1007/s40808-020-00820-y.
prioritization in relation to soil erosion in Dudhnai Watershed, Appl. Water Sci. 11 [84] Y. Farhan, A. Anbar, N. Al-Shaikh, H. Almohammad, S. Alshawamreh,
(9) (2021) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01483-5. M. Barghouthi, others, Prioritization of sub-watersheds in a large semi-arid
[61] B. Benzougagh, S.G. Meshram, A. Dridri, L. Boudad, B. Baamar, D. Sadkaoui, K. drainage basin (Southern Jordan) using morphometric analysis, GIS, and
M. Khedher, Identification of critical watershed at risk of soil erosion using multivariate statistics, Agricult. Sci. 9 (4) (2018) 437.
morphometric and geographic information system analysis, Appl. Water Sci. 12 [85] M. Abdullah, A. Almubaidin, S. Dashti, K. Balan, A. Najah, A. El-shafie, Enhancing
(2022) 1–20. sediment transport predictions through machine learning-based multi-scenario
[62] G.C. Abdeta, A.B. Tesemma, A.L. Tura, G.H. Atlabachew, Morphometric analysis regression models, Results Eng. 20 (August) (2023), 101585, https://doi.org/
for prioritizing sub-watersheds and management planning and practices in Gidabo 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101585.
Basin, Southern Rift Valley of Ethiopia, Appl. Water Sci. 10 (7) (2020) 1–15, [86] A. Mohammed, T. Adugna, W. Takala, Morphometric analysis and prioritization of
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-020-01239-7. watersheds for soil erosion management in Upper Gibe catchment, Journal of
[63] M. Shaikh, S. Yadav, V. Manekar, Application of the compound factor for runoff Degraded and Mining Lands Management 6 (1) (2018) 1419–1426, https://doi.
potential in sub-watersheds prioritisation based on quantitative morphometric org/10.15243/jdmlm.
analysis, J. Geol. Societ. India 98 (5) (2022) 687–695. [87] X. Liu, H. Li, S. Zhang, R.M. Cruse, X. Zhang, Gully erosion control practices in
[64] A. Kumar, S. Singh, M. Pramanik, S. Chaudhary, A.K. Maurya, M. Kumar, Northeast China: a review, Sustainability 11 (18) (2019) 5065.
Watershed prioritization for soil erosion mapping in the Lesser Himalayan Indian [88] A. Mohammed, T. Adugna, W. Takala, Morphometric Analysis and Prioritization of
basin using PCA and WSA methods in conjunction with morphometric parameters Watersheds for Soil Erosion Management in Upper Gibe Catchment Morphometric
and GIS-based approach, in: Environment, Development and Sustainability (Issue Analysis and Prioritization of Watersheds for Soil Erosion Management in Upper
June), Springer Netherlands, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01586-8. Gibe Catchment, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15243/jdmlm. October.

16