4.

3 Erosion risk evaluation

The evaluation of soil erosion risk was obtained applying the Van Zuidam methodology (1986). It is a
qualitative approach based on the knowledge of the surveyor to detect and recognize during the field
survey, different factors involved in the erosion dynamics: geological, geomorphological,
climatological, land cover and land use. Obtained results were analyzed and compared to the field data
in order to evaluate, where possible, a correspondence with the actual soil erosion. Four main
categories of parameters were used for the qualitative assessment of soil erosion risk:
slope: slope gradient, length, form;
soil/geology: soil depth, texture, surface sealing;
vegetation/land use: vegetation cover, rainstorm frequency, conservation practices;
erosion and mass movement: rating of wind erosion, sheet erosion, rill/gully/ravine erosion,
mass movement.
The morphology, soil and geology parameters are listed in Table 46, Table 47 and Table 48, the
vegetation and land use parameters are listed in Table 49 and the geomorphology processes are shown
the Table 50.
Each parameter was divided in classes and a rate was given, according to its contribution, to the
erosion susceptibility. Regarding the climatologic condition factors, the rainstorm frequency was
considered as homogeneous for all the area and it was ascribed to value of 3 that corresponds to the
heavy rainstorm frequency of several times during a year.
It was not always possible to recognize the structure of the underlying strata and the rock weathering
degree, so the missing data were not reported and then rated as zero. As most of the study area is used
for agricultural practices, the land cover was divided into the following vegetation density/land use
conditions:
agroforestry and forest plantation were rated as 1;
natural vegetation was rated as 2;
the fallow systems was rated as 12;
the other types of agriculture areas like irrigated cultivation, rainfed arable cultivation were
rated as 3.
The rating classes of erosion risk parameters were obtained combining the spacing and the depth of
rill/gully/ravine erosion process.
The rating of the vegetation cover was multiplied by the frequency of rainstorm and consequently the
result was added to all the other factors ratings; the obtained sum was compared to the erosion
susceptibility class as shown in Table 51.
Considering the geomorphological aspects of the study area, the original Van Zuidam criteria was
slightly modified to better fit the characteristics of the This province. So, as for the texture, the
presence of clay material was given a high value, especially in the low areas that are not affected by
erosion like the bottom of Tanma Lake. Consequently, the final rating of the texture was affected by
the value of the slope gradient: if the slope gradient was lower than 3%, the clay texture was not taken
into account and a new value of 1 was given. The areas belonging to the urban, airport, military zones,
quarries were excluded from the assessment and were classified as not relevant (NR).

Results and discussion

As the study area is mainly characterized by a flat to gently sloping surface, the erosion effect is
considered to be very minimal. In fact, as shown in the erosion risk map, (Figure 27) the erosion

susceptibility is considered to be slight along the coastal and fixed dunes area and in the This
cuestawith shallow sand coverage. Indeed, in the marginal areas with the forest plantation of
Casuarina equisetifolia, the erosion degree decreases to a low class, mainly because the presence of
the forest limits the erosion processes, in particular wind erosion, and preserves the soil. For this
reason, the area is ascribed to class 1. Meanwhile, along the dissected accumulation glacis and the
cuesta outliers, the erosion susceptibility is moderate due to the increase in steepness, where water
action is the main geomorphological agent. While in the southern part of the region, the wind erosion
is more dominant and the area is affected by moderate erosion susceptibility.
In the middle part of the study area, along the plateau with a shallow sand coverage, the erosion
susceptibility is considered to be high, due to the presence of dense drainage network and a low
vegetation coverage, so the area is easily prone to gully and rill erosion. High values of erosion
susceptibility are present along the This scarp, especially in the area near Mont Rolland, where big
gully erosion is present as verified during the field survey.
Slope gradient (%)
Value
0-2
3-7
8-13
14-20
21-55
>56
Table 46 - Rating for slope factors.

Rating
1
2
4
8
24
32

Depth of unconsolidated material (cm)

Ratin
Description
Value
g
Very shallow
0-24
4
Shallow
25-49
3
Moderately deep
50-99
2
Deep
>100
1
Table 47 - Ratings for soil/geology factors.
Texture
Description (*2)
C, SiCL
SC, CL, SCL, L, SiL, Si
SL, S
C, SiCL in flat area

Rating
8
4
1
1

Slope length (m)

Value
Rating
0-14
1
15-49
2
50-149
4
150-499
6
>500
8

Depth of the first impermeable layer (cm)

Ratin
Description
Value
g
Shallow
0-49
4
Moderately shallow
50-99
2
Moderately deep
100-149
1
Deep
>150
0

Surface sealing
Description
Slight hard
Hard
Very hard
Extremely hard

Rating
1
2
4
6

(*2) C (Clay), SiCL (Silty clay loam), SC (Sandy clay), CL (Clay loam), SCL (Sandy clay loam), L (Loam), SiL (Silty loam), Si (Silt), SL
(Sandy loam), S (Sandy).

Table 48 - Rating for soil factors.

Vegetation cover (%)

Value (*1)

Rating

MF, FP
NV
HE1, AA1, AA4, AA6, AP1,
AT1
AA2

1
2
3

Rainstorm frequency
Ratin
Description
g
Exceptional
1
Once in a year
2
Several times a
3
year

Conservation practice
Rati
Description
ng
Benching
-6
Terracing
-4
Contouring
-4

12

(*1) MF (Agroforestry), FP (Plantation forestry), NV (Natural vegetation), HE1 (Nomadism), AA1 (Shifting cultivation), AA4 (Rainfed arable
cultivation), AA6 (Irrigated agriculture), AP1 (Non-irrigated perennial field cropping), AT1 (Non-irrigated tree crop cultivation), AA2 (Fallow
system cultivation).

Table 49 - Rating for vegetation/land use factors.

Rill/gully/ravine
Description
Value
Slight
1
Moderate
2
Severe
4
Table 50 - Rating for erosion.

Sheet erosion
Description
Value
Slight
1
Moderate
2
Severe
4

Wind erosion
Description
Value
Slight
1
Moderate
2
Severe
4

Description
Ratings sum
Not or insignificantly susceptible to erosion
0-16
Slightly susceptible to erosion
17-24
Moderately susceptible to erosion
25-29
Highly susceptible to erosion
30-48
Very highly susceptible to erosion
49-64
Extremely susceptible to erosion
>65
Table 51 - Rating sum and corresponding class for erosion assessment.

Class
1
2
3
4
5
6