Article

Soil Loss Estimation Using Remote Sensing and RUSLE Model

in Koromi-Federe Catchment Area of Jos-East LGA,
Plateau State, Nigeria
Andrew Ayangeaor Ugese 1 , Jesugbemi Olaoye Ajiboye 1 , Esther Shupel Ibrahim 2,3,4, * ,
Efron Nduke Gajere 2 , Atang Itse 2 and Halilu Ahmad Shaba 5

1 Department of Geomatic Engineering, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi, İncivez, Üniversite Cd.,
67100 Zonguldak, Turkey
2 National Centre for Remote Sensing, Jos, Rizek Village Jos Eat LGA, Jos PMB 2136, Plateau State, Nigeria
3 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Straße 84,
15374 Müncheberg, Germany
4 Earth Observation Lab, Geography Institute, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
5 National Space Research and Development Agency, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology,
Abuja PMB 437, Nigeria
* Correspondence: esther.shupel.ibrahim@hu-berlin.de

Abstract: Soil loss caused by erosion has destroyed landscapes, as well as depositing sterile material
on fertile lands and rivers, clogged waterways and accelerated flash floods, declined the populations
of fish and other species, and diminish soil fertility. In some places, erosion has also destroyed
buildings, caused mudflow, create new landforms, displaced people, and slowed down the economy
of the affected community by destroying roads and homes. Erosion is aggravated by climate change
Citation: Ugese, A.A.; Ajiboye, J.O.; and anthropogenic factors such as deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate methods of tillage, and
Ibrahim, E.S.; Gajere, E.N.; Itse, A.; unsustainable agricultural practices. In this study, remote sensing (RS) and geographic information
Shaba, H.A. Soil Loss Estimation (GIS) data and tools were used to model erosion and estimate soil loss in the catchment area of
Using Remote Sensing and RUSLE Koromi-Federe in Jos East, Plateau State Nigeria which is our study area. Soil loss estimation was
Model in Koromi-Federe Catchment performed using the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) model and was computed by
Area of Jos-East LGA, Plateau State, substituting the corresponding values of each factor inherent in the equation (rainfall erosivity, soil
Nigeria. Geomatics 2022, 2, 499–517. erodibility, slope steepness and slope length, cover management, and conservation practices) using
https://doi.org/10.3390/
RS and GIS tools. Soil data was obtained from the study area and analyzed in the laboratory, rainfall
geomatics2040027
data, land cover, digital elevation model (DEM), as well as the management practice of the study
Academic Editor: Frédéric Frappart area were the parameters computed in spatial analyst tool using map algebra based on RUSLE. The
soil loss generated was classified into four classes and the results revealed 95.27% of the catchment
Received: 1 October 2022
with a tolerable loss of less than 10 t/h−1 /y−1 . At 3.6%, a low or minimal loss of 10–20 t/h−1 /y−1 ,
Accepted: 8 November 2022
Published: 12 November 2022 at 1.03% there exists a moderate loss of 20–50 t/h−1 /y−1 , while there was and critical or high loss
of >50 t/h−1 /y−1 at 0.12% of the catchment. The result showed that critical soil loss in the catchment
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
area is exacerbated by the influence of the slope length and steepness, and the amount of rainfall
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
received. This poses great concern with annual rainfall projected to increase up to 12% in West Africa.
published maps and institutional affil-
However, our sensitivity analysis revealed that it can be reduced with the effect of vegetated cover
iations.
and management practices. This is an important finding as it can guide sustainability practices to
control erosion and the loss of valuable lands in the region, especially now under climate change.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Keywords: erosion; climate change; geospatial; GIS; rainfall; factors; management
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons 1. Introduction
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Soil is considered the Earth’s fragile skin that anchors all life on Earth [1]. It is
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
comprised of countless species that create a dynamic and complex ecosystem and is among
4.0/).

Geomatics 2022, 2, 499–517. https://doi.org/10.3390/geomatics2040027 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/geomatics

Geomatics 2022, 2 500

the most valuable resources, as both plants, animals, and people depend on soil for food and
general survival. Just as the importance of soil cannot be overemphasized, its vulnerability
to environmental degradation cannot be overlooked, among which is soil erosion. Thus,
soil erosion is a major threat to biodiversity, as it affects crucial aspects of human, animal,
and plant lives [2].
Soil erosion is the washing or movement of the top soil by erosion agents of water and
wind [3]. It involves three processes of detachment, transportation, and deposition [4,5],
and the major effect of soil erosion is soil and nutrients loss [6,7]. Although, soil erosion is
one of the natural processes of soil formation which is influenced by topography, rainfall
intensity, temperature, land use, and soil characteristics [8]. Soil erosion allows for the
formation of soil, which is very important for sustainable agriculture as well as other
soil-related activities, however, its resultant implication of excessive soil loss poses a great
challenge to man.
Soil loss due to erosion is a source of concern when it is exacerbated by climate change
and anthropogenic factors, such as deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate methods of
tillage, and unsustainable agricultural practices [9,10]. The effects of soil erosion go beyond
the loss of fertile land [11], it has led to increased pollution and sedimentation in streams
and rivers, clogging these waterways and causing a decline in the populations of fish and
other species, while also increasing the risk of flash floods [12,13]. In another dimension,
degraded lands are often less able to hold water and nutrients, which can aggravate
erosion [14–16]. Sustainable land uses can help reduce the impacts of agricultural practices
and prevent soil erosion and the loss of valuable lands. Soil erosion and soil loss have been a
major ecological concern for environmentalist/conservators, farmers, and the government
as well as the entire global community whose livelihood depend on soils, as thousands to
millions of tons of soil are lost annually to erosion. On a global scale, Eswaran et al. [16]
estimated the annual loss of 75 billion tons of soil costing the world about USD 400 billion
per year, approximately USD 70 per person per year. The concerns are more critical in
Africa as a result of climate change. Annual rainfall is projected to increase in West and East
Africa from 0% to +12% depending on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) [17],
local efforts exist to understand resident climate change in Nigeria [18,19]. As such, the
government of Nigeria through the World Bank has set up the Nigerian Erosion and
Watershed Management project (NEWMAP) worth USD 500 million to combat or reduce
erosion related problems in the country [19]. There is first the need for robust tool in
assessing spatial distribution of soil loss to tackle the menace head on.
Remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) tools have become robust
tools in estimating soil loss and monitoring and managing erosion. The always-growing
availability of earth observation data and the well-established use of Geographic Infor-
mation Systems (GIS) lead to the development of automated geospatial toolboxes for the
estimation of soil erosion [20,21]. These tools have been used in different parts of the
world to predict erosion and soil loss; in South Africa [22], in Germany [23] in Italy [24], in
India [25,26], in China [27], in Ethiopia [28], in different parts of Nigeria [29–31], and so on.
In the study of soil loss and in the quest of estimating the amount of soil loss in catchment
areas, there has been the development of tools and methodologies by researchers. The
choice of these methodologies often depends on data availability, the complexity of the
study areas, technical know-how, and the process involved in the application [32]. Some
of the most commonly employed models in soil loss estimation are the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) [33], its revised version, the revised universal soil loss equation
(RULSE) [34], Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) [35,36], Pacific South-West Intera-
gency Committee (PSIAC) [37], the Modified-PSIAC for arid and semi-arid areas [37,38],
the Erosion Potential method (EPM) [39], ICONA [40] among others.
While their choice clings to various factors [32], Amiri [41] uses the EPM in estimating
soil erosion and sedimentation yield in the Ghareh Aghach basin in Iran. The EPM estimates
soil loss using a variety of environmental factors, however, Rafahi [42] opined its accuracy
in estimating yield is less than other known models. Bayramin [40] employed the ICONA
Geomatics 2022, 2 501

in the soil erosion risk assessment of the Beypazari area. The ICONA model uses the slope
and the geological map (lithofacies layers) to produce soil erodibility, which is referred
to as the potential erosion risk map (PER). Hereafter, it included soil protection layers or
parameters derived from the vegetation cover (NDVI) and the land use type to estimate soil
loss. The PSIAC/MPSIAC has also been used and prioritized for their reliability, capability,
accuracy, and precision in estimating soil loss in arid and semi-arid regions, and also for all
kinds of erosion including gully erosion [37,38,43,44].
However, the most implemented universally accepted model used for estimating soil
loss is the universal soil loss equation (USLE) [33], and its revised version (RUSLE) [34] is
the most commonly used model for estimating long-term average soil loss, especially with
remote sensing data and tools [24,45,46]. The RUSLE model is adaptable and applicable in
diverse scales [46], including Nigeria [29–31]. In the Nigeria context, the RUSLE is often
employed in soil loss estimation [47–51]. Obiahu and Elias [47] deployed RS data and
the RUSLE in assessing the effect of LULC on the rate of soil erosion in the catchment of
Afikpo North areas over a period of 20 years (1996–2016) with a result citing an increase
in food demand and mining activities as the driving force for the LULC changes which
influences the soil erosion rate between the period. Similarly„ Adediji et al. [30] using
RS and GIS data and also adopted the RUSLE in soil loss estimation in Katsina with
findings identifying the slope factor to be of major significance exacerbating soil loss.
Emeriobeole [51] also explored the RUSLE in soil loss estimation of Imo, in Imo state,
Nigeria. In the case of Emeriobeole [51], deforestation and land clearing for agricultural
purpose, urban development and the slope steepness are identified as the cause for wide
spread erosion in the catchment of Imo. Okenmuo [49] employed RUSLE in estimating soil
water erosion in Obibia river watershed of Anambra with a result validating the RUSLE
as an accurate and cost-effective means for soil erosion prediction. Dike [50] also applied
the RUSLE in their estimation of soil loss rate in Urualla, Nigeria. The above listed studies
reveals the frequency in the use of RUSLE due to its simplicity and suitability for integration
in GIS. As such, in this study, on the basis data accessibility, nature of terrain, the type
of erosion experienced in the study area, and the wide acceptance/implementation of
RUSLE across various watersheds in Nigeria, we tested the RUSLE model to estimate soil
loss in a catchment in Plateau state, Nigeria where erosion has increased in the recent
past and robust scientific understanding using remote sensing and GIS data and tools are
currently lacking.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The Koromi-Federe catchment area is situated in Jos-East Local Government of Plateau
state and is located between 90◦ 00 01” E, 90◦ 490 38” N and 9◦ 100 15” E, 100◦ 000 00” N (Figure 1).
The Kurumi catchment covers an area of 222.133 km2 . According to the Köppenen climates
classification, the study area is located within equatorial (AW). Elevation is high, and
situated within the boundary of the Maijuju rock formation. Temperature is generally low
as an element of elevation, with an average temperature that ranges between 17 ◦ C and
25 ◦ C [52]. The mean monthly rainfall is 180 mm, with a peak of >228 mm between June
and August. A recent increase in precipitation is recorded in the region under climate
change, and more serious erosion cases are recorded (field observations; see samples in
Figure 1a,b). This presents concerns as the Koromi catchment is an important economic
hub in terms of agriculture for both animal and crop production. Agriculture is the main
activity of the people, growing majorly cereal such as maize, millet, and rice, and important
vegetables such as pepper, cucumber, cabbage, okra, peas, and green beans in both rainy
and dry seasons [53]. The area is green with the availability of grasses, shrubs, trees, and
streams (Figure 2), thereby making it suitable for cattle owners to graze for the production
of milk and meat. As such, large camps of grazing activities are dominant in the region.
With elevations ranging between 817 m to 1761 m, the terrain is highly undulating with
mountainous and plain landscapes which makes it highly susceptible to erosion, more
 both rainy and dry seasons [53]. The area is green with the availability of grasses, shrubs,
trees, and streams (Figure 2), thereby making it suitable for cattle owners to graze for the
Geomatics 2022, production
2 of milk and meat. As such, large camps of grazing activities are dominant in 502
the region. With elevations ranging between 817 m to 1761 m, the terrain is highly undu-
lating with mountainous and plain landscapes which makes it highly susceptible to ero-
sion, more so thatsothe soilthe
that is sandy Loam which
soil is sandy is generally
Loam which prone to
is generally erosion
prone (field survey,
to erosion (field survey, 2015).
2015). The tributaries in the catchment (Figure 1) are the source of the flow
The tributaries in the catchment (Figure 1) are the source of the of many
flowrivers
of many rivers in
in northern Nigeria including
northern Nigeriatheincluding
Gongola,theHadejia,
Gongola, and Yobe rivers
Hadejia, (www.nigeriagal-
and Yobe rivers (www.nigeriagalleria.
leria.com; accessed
com; onaccessed
30th Marchon 302019).
March However, erosion erosion
2019). However, has recently increased
has recently in the in the region
increased
region causing devastating effects oneffects
causing devastating farmlands, infrastructures,
on farmlands, housing,
infrastructures, and soand
housing, on,so ason, as shown
shown in Figure in1a,b.
Figure 1a,b.

Figure 1. Map of Jos East 1.

Figure LGAMapshowing the location
of Jos East of Koromi
LGA showing catchment
the location and drainages.
of Koromi catchment(a).and
is adrainages. (a). is
cultivated field in the Koromi catchment partially eroded; (b). is the main Fobur to Ferere road
a cultivated field in the Koromi catchment partially eroded; (b). is the main Fobur to Ferere road
eroded. (a). Both pictures were captured in 2015 during the field work exercise.
eroded. Both pictures were captured in 2015 during the field work exercise.
GeomaticsGeomatics
2022, 2 2022, 2 503 503

Figure Figure
2. The land cover
2. The landof Koromi
cover catchment.
of Koromi catchment.

2.2. Description
2.2. Description of the RUSLE
of the RUSLE Method
Method
The methodology
The methodology was based
was based on principle
on the the principle
andand formulas
formulas ofof theRUSLE
the RUSLE[34],
[34],and
and the
analysis was carried out using “map calculator” of the ArcGIS “map algebra”.
the analysis was carried out using “map calculator” of the ArcGIS “map algebra”.
The RUSLE mathematical equation is expressed below:
The RUSLE mathematical equation is expressed below:
A×
𝑨=𝑅 R×
=𝐾 × LS
×K𝐿𝑆 × 𝐶× ×
C×𝑃P (1) (1)
where:where:
A is the
A is the average average
annual soilannual
loss per soil loss per
hectare hectare
(t/ha (t/ha−1 /y−1 ),
−1/y−1),
R is the rainfall run-offfactor
erosivity −1 /h−1 /y−1 )
R is the rainfall run-off erosivity (MJfactor
mm/ha
− 1
(MJ
−
mm/ha
−1/h
1
−1/y−1)
− 1
K soilfactor
K soil erodibity erodibity factor−1(t/MJ
(t ha/h/ha ha/h/ha
−1 mm−1) /MJ mm )
LS is the slope-steepness factor (dimensionless)
LS is the slope-steepness factor (dimensionless)
C is the cover management factor (dimensionless)
C is the cover management factor (dimensionless)
P is the conservation practices (dimensionless)
P is the conservation practices (dimensionless)
2.2.1. Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R Factor)
2.2.1. Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R Factor)
Rainfall erosivity is the first factor required in the equation. The R factor is based on
Rainfall
rainfallerosivity
impact inisthe
the firstoffactor
form kineticrequired in the
energy, and equation.
it also projectsThetheRrate
factor
and is based on
quantity of run-
rainfalloff
impact
whichinis the forminterconnected
directly of kinetic energy, withand it also projects
a particular the rateevent
precipitation and [33].
quantity of
According
run-offtowhich is directly
Wischmeier andinterconnected
Smith [33], a periodwith of
a particular
20–25 years precipitation
is recommended eventfor
[33]. Accord- the
computing
ing to Wischmeier
average annual andrainfall.
Smith [33], a period
As such, of 20–25rainfall
the monthly years isforrecommended
the study area for
wascomputing
collected from
the average annual rainfall. As such, the monthly rainfall for the study area was collected
five meteorological stations near the study area for a period of 30 years, collected by the
from five meteorological
Nigerian stations
Meteorological near the
Agency study area for a period of 30 years, collected by
(NIMET).
the Nigerian Meteorological
The Agency
monthly averages (NIMET).
for the 30-year period were used to calculate rainfall erosivity
The monthly
using the meanaverages
annualfor the 30-year
rainfall period were
in accordance with used to calculate
the following rainfall erosivity
formula:
using the mean annual rainfall in accordance with the following formula:
R = 8.12 + 0.562P (2)
𝑅 = 8.12 + 0.562𝑃 (2)
where R is the rainfall erosivity factor and P is the mean annual rainfall (mm).
where R is the rainfall erosivity factor and P is the mean annual rainfall (mm).
The data were then interpolated in the ArcGIS to produce continuous rainfall data
for each grid cell using the spatial analyst tool.
Geomatics 2022, 2 504

The data were then interpolated in the ArcGIS to produce continuous rainfall data for
each grid cell using the spatial analyst tool.

2.2.2. Soil Erodibility (K Factor)

The K factor (soil erodibility factor) is next in the equation. This K factor is the estima-
tion of the resistance of soil against erosion due to the impact of raindrops (interception)
and the rate and amount of run-off produced for that rainfall impact, under a standard
condition usually depending on geological and soil features [54]. The K factor was gen-
erated from the results of our analyzed soil samples. For the purpose of this study, soil
texture, structure class, organic matter, and permeability class were considered. Using their
corresponding values, it was calculated using the following formula from the 21 samples
we collected on the field from July to August 2015. Soil tests were carried out in the soil
department of the Federal College of Forestry, Jos Plateau State Nigeria. The interpolation
of the soil samples was carried out in ArcGIS spatial analyst tool to generate continuous
soil data. The K factor was calculated using the formula below:

K = 2.8 × 10−7 × (12 − OM ) × M1.14 + 4.3 × 10−3 × (s − 2) + 3.3 × 10−3 × ( P − 3) (3)

where:
K = soil erodibility factor.
OM = organic matter content
P = soil permeability class
S = soil structure
M = particle size parameter (%silt + % very fine sand) × (100 − %clay)

2.2.3. Slope Length and Slope Steepness (LS Factor)

The LS factor is a combination of two topographic factors, which are: slope length
(L) and slope steepness (S). Usually, as the length of the slope increases, the amount and
rate of cumulative run-off also increase. Likewise, as the land slope increases, the run-off
velocity also increases and results in a massive erosion incidence [46]. Digital elevation
model (DEM) was extracted from the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) at a 30 m
resolution and was downloaded from the United States Geological Survey department
(accessed from; https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/; accessed on 15 February 2016). The DEM
was used to generate slope length and slope steepness, also using the spatial analyst tool in
ArcGIS, where slope and flow accumulation were generated. These were then multiplied
in the map algebra in the spatial analyst tool to generate the LS factor.
The following formula was used:
 cs   
LS = POW FA × m × 0.065 = 0.045.s + 0.0065.s2 (4)
22.13
where
FA = Flow Accumulation
m = slope value
s = slope DEM
cs = cell size

2.2.4. Cover Management Practices (C Factor)

Next in the RUSLE equation is generating the C factor. The C factor accounts for
how croplands and crop management causes soil loss varying from soil losses occurring
in bare or fallow areas [55]. The land cover map of the study area was generated using
a Landsat 8 satellite image at a 30 m spatial resolution (with date, raw, and path infor-
mation: LANDSAT/LC08/C01/T1_TOA/LC08_188053_20151016). We performed image
pre-processing and corrections (atmospheric and radiometric corrections). This image is
100% cloud-free and dated 16 October 2015. This date captures more accurately the day of
omatics 2022, 2 505

Geomatics 2022, 2 505

dominantly bare areas not due to seasonal changes. A false color band combination (bands
band Band-5 (NIR), Band-4 (red), and Band-3 (green)) was used to generate an image com-
posite. Theyear
datawhen major
was also land cover and
downloaded fromland
the uses
Unitedmapped
Statesare present. Survey
Geological Crops are dominantly still
depart-
ment (accessed from; https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/; accessed on 15th February 2016).vegetation,
on the field and not harvested, this window is the peak of greening in woody
Supervisedboth
imageseasonal and perennial
classifications rivers andlikelihood
using maximum streams have water,inand
algorithm anyimagine
Erdas bare areas within
this window are dominantly bare areas not due to seasonal changes. A false color band
software was carried out to generate the land use/land cover [53,56]. The validation of the
combination (bands band Band-5 (NIR), Band-4 (red), and Band-3 (green)) was used to
land cover was achieved using 60 land cover field samples collected in 2015, and as carried
generate an image composite. The data was also downloaded from the United States Geo-
out using cross-validation approach [57] and an overall accuracy of 78% was achieved.
logical Survey department (accessed from; https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/; accessed on
The land cover classes generated are water, agriculture, rock outcrop, Savanna, settle-
15 February 2016). Supervised image classifications using maximum likelihood algorithm
ment, and forest (Figure 2). The same Landsat image was used to generate a normalized
in Erdas imagine software was carried out to generate the land use/land cover [53,56]. The
difference vegetation index (NDVI). NDVI is a measure of the greenness or vigor of veg-
validation of the land cover was achieved using 60 land cover field samples collected in
etation [58] and was generated (map is in Figure 3), using band 4 (red) and band 5 (near-
2015, and as carried out using cross-validation approach [57] and an overall accuracy of
infrared band) and this formula;
78% was achieved. The land cover classes generated are water, agriculture, rock outcrop,
Savanna, settlement,NDVI = 𝑁IR(Figure
and forest 2). The
− Red/NIR same Landsat image was used
+ Red (5)to generate
a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). NDVI is a measure of the greenness or
The expression below was[58]
vigor of vegetation used to estimate
and the C factor
was generated (map is in Figure 3), using band 4 (red) and
band 5 (near-infrared band) and this formula;
𝐶 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 −𝑎 (
. )
(6)
NDVI = NIR − Red/NIR + Red (5)
where alpha = 2 and Beta = 1

Figure 3. Normalized difference vegetation

Figure 3. Normalized differenceindex (NDVI)
vegetation of Koromi
index (NDVI)catchment.
of Koromi catchment.

2.2.5. Management TheFactor (P factor)

expression below was used to estimate the C factor
The last factor is management (P factor). Thisis the ratio of soil loss using a specific
NDV I
support practice to the corresponding lossCwith upslope
= exp − a and down-slope tillage [34]. The (6)
( β − NDV I )
P factor map was derived from the land cover and weighed values assigned to the land
uses from where
0 to 1, alpha
in which the Beta
= 2 and highest
= 1 value is assigned to areas with no conservation
practices (open areas, water, bare and grasslands), which are dominantly areas with con-
servation practices, while the farmlands
2.2.5. Management (agriculture area) are assigned different thresh-
Factor (P Factor)
olds below 1 basedTheonlastslope percentage
factor as recommended
is management by Wischmeier
(P factor). This and
is the ratio of Smith
soil loss [33].
using a specific
After the generation
support practice oftothe
theR,corresponding
C, P, LS, and loss
K factor
withmaps,
upslope annual soil loss (A)tillage
and down-slope was [34]. The
estimated using
P factorthe
mapmathematical
was derived equation (Equation
from the land cover and(1))weighed
described above.
values However,
assigned to the land uses
next, we tested
fromthe
0 tomodel sensitivity
1, in which based value
the highest on field data and to
is assigned factor
areasmaps
withgenerated. The practices
no conservation
(open areas, water, bare and grasslands), which are dominantly areas with conservation
 Geomatics 2022, 2 506

entire methodological workflow for generating soil loss is summarized in Figure 4 below
and data summary and sources are in Table 1.
Geomatics 2022, 2 506

Table 1. Data summary.

Data practices, while the farmlands

Type Spatial Resolution
(agriculture Source
area) are assigned different thresholds below 1
Rainfall based on slope percentage
Vectoras recommended - by Wischmeier and Smith NIMET
[33].
Soil Vector
After the generation of the R, C, P,- LS, and K factor maps, Field
annualwork
soil loss (A) was
Elevation and
estimated using the mathematical equation (Equation (1)) https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
described above. However, next,
Raster 30 m
slope (derived fromweSRTM)
tested the model sensitivity based on field data andaccessed on 15th
factor maps February
generated. 2016
The entire
Land cover and NDVI (derived from Landsat
methodological workflow for generating soil loss is https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/and
summarized in Figure 4 below
Raster 30 m
8, dated 16 Octoberdata
2015).
summary and sources are in Table 1. accessed on 15th February 2016

Figure4.4.Illustration
Figure Illustrationofofworkflow.
workflow.

3. Results
Table 1. Data summary.
3.1. Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R factor)
Data Type Spatial Resolution Source
The R factor is the erosive potential of rainfall using 30 years of rainfall records. Rain-
Rainfall
fall erosivity is Vector
greatly influenced by the -volume, intensity, duration, NIMET
and pattern of rain-
Soil fall. Our resultsVector
revealed that the average- annual R factor values Field
ranges from 42.9 in the
work
Elevation and southwest to 44.3 MJ mm/ha−1/y−1 in the northeastern parts of the study area (Figure 5).
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Raster 30 m
slope (derived from SRTM) accessed on 15 February 2016
Land cover and NDVI (derived from https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Raster 30 m
Landsat 8, dated 16 October 2015). accessed on 15 February 2016

3. Results
3.1. Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R Factor)
The R factor is the erosive potential of rainfall using 30 years of rainfall records.
Rainfall erosivity is greatly influenced by the volume, intensity, duration, and pattern of
rainfall. Our results revealed that the average annual R factor values ranges from 42.9 in the
southwest to 44.3 MJ mm/ha−1 /y−1 in the northeastern parts of the study area (Figure 5).
 Geomatics
Geomatics 2022,2022,
Geomatics 2 2
2 2022, 507 507 507

Figure
Figure 5. 5. The
The
Figure R factor
R5.factor
The Rmap.map.
factor map.

3.2. 3.2. Soil

Soil3.2. Erodibility
Erodibility
Soil Factor
Factor
Erodibility (K (K (K
factor)
factor)
Factor Factor)
The The K factor
The
K factor K factor represents
represents
represents the
theresistance
resistance
the resistance or
orerodibility
erodibility
or erodibility of theof the
of soil soil
the soil
underunder
under varying
varying
varying condi-
conditions
condi-
tionstions
andand
and landland
land cover.cover.
cover. Erodibilty
Erodibilty
Erodibilty depends
depends
depends essentially
essentially
essentially onon organic
organic
on organic matter,
matter,
matter, structure,
structure,
structure, texture,and
texture,
texture,
andand permeability
permeability
permeability [59].
[59].[59]. In
In theIn the study
the study
study area,
area,area, themajor
the
the major major soiltexture
soil soil
texture texture classes
classes
classes found found
found
werewerewere
sandy sandy
sandy
loam, loam,
loam,
sandy sandy
sandy
clay,clay,clay,
loam, loam,
loam,
loamy loamy
loamysand, sand,
sand,
andand and
sandsand sand
withwithwith
sandy sandy
sandy
loam loamloam
the the the dominant
dominant
dominant which which
is is is
which
highly highly
highly susceptible
susceptible
susceptible to erosion to erosion
to erosionandandcouldand
could could
explain
explain explain
the thedegree
the high
high degree high degree of the
of erosion
of erosion of erosion
of area of the
the area
(Fig- area
(Fig-
uresures (Figures
6 and6 and 6 and
7). The
7). The 7). The
soil soil soil
analysis
analysis analysis
alsoalso also revealed
revealed
revealed veryvery very
highhigh high
sandsand sand content
content
content in the in
in soil the
the soil soil samples
samples
samples
(Figure (Figure
(Figure 8), 8), further
further
8), further implying
implying
implying susceptibility
susceptibility
susceptibility to to erodibility.
erodibility.
to erodibility.

Figure
Figure 6. The
Figure
6. The distribution
6. The
distribution of texture
distribution
of soil soil texture
of soil in Koromi
texture catchment
in Koromi
in Koromi catchment
catchment ofEast
of Jos Jos East
of Jos LGA.
East
LGA. LGA.
Geomatics 2022, 2 508
Geomatics
Geomatics 2022,
2022, 22 508
508

Figure 7. The distribution of soil characteristics within different land cover types in Koromi catchment
Figure 7. The
Figure distribution
7. The of soil
distribution characteristics
of soil within
characteristics different
within land
different cover
land covertypes
typesininKoromi
Koromicatch-
catch-
of Jos East LGA.
ment of Jos
ment East
of Jos LGA.
East LGA.

100100 Sand
Sand (%)(%) SiltSilt
(%)(%) Clay
Clay(%)
(%)
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 91010
1111
1212
1313
141415151616171718181919202021212222
Sample
Sample Number
Number
Figure8.8.The
Thedistribution
distributionofofsoil
soil content within different soil samples analyzed in Koromi catch-
Figure
Figure8. The distribution of soil content
content within
within different soil
different soilsamples
samplesanalyzed
analyzedininKoromi
Koromi catch-
catchment
ment of Jos East LGA.
ment of East
of Jos Jos East
LGA.LGA.

Theresult
result ofthe
the K factor
factor revealed
revealed soilsoil erodibility
erodibility susceptibility from 0.216 to 0.245.
The result ofof
The the K K factor revealed soil erodibility susceptibility
susceptibility fromfrom 0.216 to to
0.216 0.245.
0.245.
The results implies that, the higher the erodibility factor, the greater the inherent potential
The
Theresults
resultsimplies
implies that,
that,the
thehigher
higher the erodibility
the erodibilityfactor, the
factor, greater
the greaterthetheinherent
inherentpotential
potential
toerode.
erode.TheThenorthern
northernparts
parts ofthe theregion
regionareare therefore more susceptible to erosion based
toto
erode. The northern parts ofofthe region are therefore
therefore more susceptible
more susceptibleto toerosion
erosionbased
basedon
on Figure 9. The difference between the highest and lowest K factor in the region is how-
onFigure
Figure9.9.The
Thedifference
differencebetween
betweenthe thehighest
highestand andlowest
lowestK Kfactor
factorininthe
the region
region is is how-
however,
ever, narrow (0.028), as soil types in the region are similar.
ever, narrow
narrow (0.028),
(0.028), as soil
as soil types types in region
in the the region are similar.
are similar.
Geomatics 2022,
Geomatics 2 2
2022, 509509

Figure 9. The
Figure K factor
9. The map.
K factor map.

3.3.3.3.
Slope Length
Slope andand
Length Slope Steepness
Slope (LS(LS
Steepness factor)
Factor)
TheTheLS LS
map
mapdescribes
describes thethe
impact
impact of of
topography
topography on on
soilsoil
erosion using
erosion slope
using length
slope length
and steepness. The shorter the slope length the steeper the slope, hence greater cumulative
and steepness. The shorter the slope length the steeper the slope, hence greater cumulative
runoff.
runoff.The highest
The highestpoint
pointfrom
fromthe
theLS
LSfactor
factor is 45.4648(Figure
is 45.4648 (Figure10)10)and
andthese
these areas
areas corre-
correspond
spond
withwith the locations
the locations ofhigh
of the the high elevations
elevations and and
veryvery
steepsteep
slopesslopes instudy
in the the study
area.area.

Figure 10. 10.

Figure TheThe
LS LS
factor map.
factor map.

3.4.3.4.
Crop Management
Crop ManagementFactor (C (C
Factor Factor)
Factor)
TheThe
C factor map
C factor is the
map relative
is the effectiveness
relative of of
effectiveness soilsoil
and crop
and management
crop management systems
systems
in terms
in termsof of
preventing or or
preventing reducing
reducingsoilsoil
loss. This
loss. indicates
This indicates howhowconservation plans
conservation will
plans will
affect the average annual soil loss. It shows the ratio of soil loss from land cover underun-
affect the average annual soil loss. It shows the ratio of soil loss from land cover
Geomatics 2022, 2 510
Geomatics 2022,
Geomatics 2 2
2022, 510510

specified
specified conditions
conditions
der specified to that
to that from
conditions from
to continuously
continuously
that fallow and
fallow
from continuously and tilled
tilled
fallow lands.
lands.
and The
The
tilled CC map
map
lands. (Figure
(Figure
The C map
11) revealed
11)(Figure
revealed higher
11)higher values
values
revealed of 1.28
of 1.28
higher in the
in the
values region
of region and
1.28 in and correspond
the correspond with bare, cultivated,
with bare, cultivated,
region and correspond wa-
with bare,wa-
culti-
ter, and
ter,vated,built
and built
water,areas,
areas, while
andwhile low values
low values
built areas, correspond
whilecorrespond with
low valueswith the forest
the forest
correspond and savanna
andthe
with savanna land cover
landsavanna
forest and cover
(Figures
(Figures 22 and
land cover and(Figures
11).
11). 2 and 11).

Figure 11. The C factor map.

Figure 11.11.
Figure The C factor
The map.
C factor map.

3.5.
3.5. TheThe
3.5.
The Soil
Soil Management
Soil Management
Management Practice (P (P
Practice
Practice (P factor)
Factor)
factor)
TheThe p value
p valuereflects the
reflects effects
the effectsof practices
of
The p value reflects the effects of practices practicesthat can
that
that can potentially
can potentially
potentially reduce
reduce
reduce or or
or increase
increase
increase thethe
the
amount
amount
amount and
and andrate ofofwater
rateof
rate water runoff
waterrunoff and
runoffand thus
andthus reduce
thusreduce or
reduce or increase
or increase the rate
increase the
the rate and
rate anddegree
and degreeofof
degree oferosion.
ero-
ero-
sion. Common
Common support
support practices
practices include
include cross-slope
cross-slope cultivation,
cultivation, strip strip cropping,
cropping,
sion. Common support practices include cross-slope cultivation, strip cropping, contour contour contour
farming,
farming,
terracing,
farming, terracing,
grassed
terracing, grassed waterways,
waterways,
grassed
etc. The
waterways, etc.PThe
etc. The P factor
factor
P factor
map mapshowsshows
map shows
areasareas
withwith
areas with no conser-
conser-
no conservation
no
vation practices
practices as
as 1 while 1 while areas
areas with with
relative relative conservation
conservation practicespractices as
as 0.2 (Figure
vation practices as 1 while areas with relative conservation practices as 0.2 (Figure 12). 0.2 (Figure
12). 12).
The results
The results
depict thatdepict
most that
partsmost
of theparts
areaof arethe area
highly are highly
vulnerable vulnerable
based on this
The results depict that most parts of the area are highly vulnerable based on this factorbased
factoron this
(Figure factor
12) as
(Figure 12)
most
(Figure 12) as
as most
farming most farming
farming activities
activities in activities in
the area in the
are the area
area are
carried outare carried
carried out
with no out with
or with no
little no oror little
little consider-
consideration consider-
of technical
ation of technical
conservation conservation
practice. practice.
ation of technical conservation practice.

Figure 12. The P factor

The map.
P factor map.
Figure 12.12.
Figure The P factor map.
Geomatics 2022, 2 511
Geomatics 2022, 2 511

3.6. Soil Loss Analysis

3.6. Soil Loss Analysis
The soil loss estimation using the RUSLE model was computed by multiplying each
factor
Theassoil
highlighted. However,
loss estimation using thetwo parameters
RUSLE model was were considered
computed very sensitive
by multiplying eachin the
factor as highlighted. However, two parameters were considered very sensitive
model. This is based on our model calibration analysis. This is what we termed “soil in the ero-
model. This is based on our model calibration analysis. This is what we termed “soil
sion susceptibility”, which is the likelihood of soil loss if no crop management or erosion
erosion susceptibility”, which is the likelihood of soil loss if no crop management or erosion
control practices are put in place. Therefore, it considers K, R, and LS factor only. This
control practices are put in place. Therefore, it considers K, R, and LS factor only. This
susceptiblemap
susceptible maprevealed
revealed that
that thethe study
study areaarea
fallsfalls within
within a lowa to
low to medium
medium susceptibility
susceptibility
based on the combination of the factor maps, but accounting for up to 441 t/h−1 /y−/y
based on the combination of the factor maps, but accounting for up to 441 t/h−1 1 −1 in the
in
high areas (Figure 13).
the high areas (Figure 13).

Figure13.
Figure 13.(a)(a)The
The erosion
erosion susceptibility
susceptibility map;
map; (b)
(b) R R factor;
factor; (c) K(c) K factor;
factor; (d) LS(d) LS factor.
factor.

3.7. Soil Loss Hazard

3.7. Soil Loss Hazard
This final map in Figure 14 is the product revealing soil loss from the addition of all
This final map in Figure 14 is the product revealing soil loss from the addition of all
the factor maps, including conservation which we termed “soil loss hazard”. Comparing
thesoil
the factor
lossmaps,
hazardincluding conservation
with the soil which we map
erosion susceptibility termed “soil13),
(Figure loss hazard”. Comparing
a contrasting map
the soil loss hazard with the soil erosion susceptibility map (Figure
is revealed in Figure 14. In the susceptibility map (Figure 13), annual soil loss 13), a contrasting
was up to map
is revealed
441 t/h−1 /y−in Figurein14.
1 , while theIn the susceptibility
annual soil loss hazard map
map(Figure 13), value
the highest annual of soil loss
84 t/h was
−1 /y −1 up to

is441 t/h /y Implying

−1
revealed. −1, while in the annual
a significant soil loss
decrease in hazard
potentialmap the soil
annual highest
loss ifvalue
C andof 84 t/h−1/y−1 is
P (conser-
revealed.
vation Implying a significant
and management) factors aredecrease in potential annual soil loss if C and P (conser-
introduced.
vation
Forand management)
a better understandingfactors are
of the introduced.
final result, the soil loss layer was classified into four
classes (Table 2). The summary shows that about 95.27% of the catchment with a tolerable
loss of less than 10 t/h−1 /y−1 , a low or minimal loss of 10–20 t/h−1 /y−1 been 3.58% of
the Koromi-Federe catchment, 1.03% which amount to 20–50 t/h−1 /y−1 of a moderate loss
and critical or high loss of >50 t/h−1 /y−1 (0.12) of the catchment.
Geomatics 2022, 22
Geomatics 2022, 512
512

Figure
Figure 14.
14. (a)
(a) The
The soil
soil loss
loss map;
map; (b)
(b) R
R factor;
factor; (c)
(c) K
K factor;
factor; (d)
(d) LS
LS factor;
factor; (e) C factor;
(e) C (f) P
factor; (f) P factor.
factor.

TableFor a better
2. An understanding
estimation of the annual of
soilthe
lossfinal result, the soil loss layer was classified into
rating.
four classes (Table 2). The summary shows that about 95.27% of the catchment with a
Rate of Loss Soil Loss (t/h−1 /y−1 ) Percentage (%)
tolerable loss of less than 10 t/h−1/y−1, a low or minimal loss of 10–20 t/h−1/y−1 been 3.58% of
the Koromi-Federe catchment, 1.03% which<10
Tolerable/negligible amount to 20–50 t/h−1/y−1 of95.27
a moderate loss
Low loss 10–20 3.57
and critical or high loss of >50 t/h /y (0.12) of the catchment.
−1 −1
Moderate loss 20–50 1.03
Critical loss >50 0.12
Table 2. An estimation of the annual soil loss rating.

Rate of Loss
4. Discussion Soil Loss (t/h−1/y−1) Percentage (%)
Tolerable/negligible
In the recent past, there has been an increase in the incidences of soil95.27
<10 loss as a result of
Low loss[29–31,49–51]. Erosion is10–20
erosion in Nigeria 3.57 change [23],
expected to intensify due to climate
Moderate
as rainfall patternsloss 20–50
have intensified; its frequency has increased and is1.03 projected to be
Critical
catastrophic, loss
especially >50
in West and East Africa 0.12 to estimate,
[17]. It is therefore critical
monitor, and manage erosion repetitively and sustainably. RS and GIS are prominent tools
4.
forDiscussion
the estimation and management of soil loss in various spatial scales [46]. We likewise
testedInthe
thecapability
recent past,of there
RS andhasGIS
beendata
an and toolsintothe
increase estimate soil loss
incidences using
of soil lossthe
as aRUSLE
result
model in parts of Nigeria.
of erosion in Nigeria [29–31,49–51]. Erosion is expected to intensify due to climate change
Our sensitivity analysis revealed that up to 441 t/ha−1 /y−1 of soil loss is possible
[23], as rainfall patterns have intensified; its frequency has increased and is projected to
if no cropping management or erosion prevention practices are put in place. However,
be catastrophic, especially in West and East Africa [17]. It is therefore critical to estimate,
when cropping management and erosion prevention practices were tested, the soil loss
monitor, and manage erosion repetitively and sustainably. RS and GIS are prominent
reduced to 84 t/h−1 /y−1 . This shows that soil management and conservation practices
tools for the estimation and management of soil loss in various spatial scales [46]. We
can potentially reduce the amount and rate of soil loss in the Koromi–Federe catchment.
likewise tested the capability of RS and GIS data and tools to estimate soil loss using the
The K values between 0.21 and 0.24 t/ha−1 /y−1 are predominantly within sandy loam
RUSLE model in parts of Nigeria.
soils and generally susceptible to erosion. Considerably, −1the−1P and C factors act as shield
Our sensitivity analysis revealed that up to 441 t/ha /y of soil loss is possible if no
to soils, hence the more the conservation and management practices, the less the erosion.
cropping management or erosion prevention practices are put in place. However, when
This is consistent with reports by Fashae et al. [31] for parts of Oyo State Nigeria, where
cropping management and erosion prevention practices were tested, the soil loss reduced
they also reported land cover as the most important factor influencing erosion. Likewise,
to 84 t/h−1/y−1. This shows that soil management and conservation practices can potentially
Rotschek et al. [23] reported a similar finding for Germany, implying that land use, soil
reduce the amount
management and
and soil rate of soil
properties haveloss in the
higher Koromi–Federe
effects compared tocatchment.
changes inThe K values
precipitation
between
patterns.0.21 and 0.24 soil
In general, t/ha loss
−1/y studies
−1 are predominantly within
have conveyed sandy
that, loam soils
vegetation and especially
cover generally
Geomatics 2022, 2 513

along with slope length and steepness as a highly influential factor for managing soil
loss [31,46,60]. This is owed to the fact that vegetation cover directly affects raindrops and
the soil particle detachment, by dissipating raindrop energy before reaching the soil [46].
This significantly reduce soil detachments and subsequently erodibility.
Nonetheless, our sensitivity analysis revealed that soil erosion is highly influenced
by LS and R factors. This is more obvious at the hilly and steep slopes of the catchment
revealing high soil loss risk despite high vegetation cover. Surprisingly, the areas under high
risks of erosion in both Figures 13 and 14 correspond with areas under forest cover (Figure 3)
and high NDVI values (Figure 4). Implying that vegetation reduces the influence of soil loss
to a minimum threshold (Figures 13 and 14), and not total eradication in terms of managing
soil erosion dues to LS (Figure 10) in the Koromi catchment. Our findings are inconsistent
with the findings by Adediji et al. [30] for Katsina state in Nigeria, where they reported LS
as the most significant and sensitive factor in their study region. While, Gobin et al. [29]
reported that gully erosion in parts of Nsuuka in Southwestern Nigeria is influenced by all
factors (infrastructure, geohydrology, topography, vegetation, and land use) although they
recorded higher soil loss on escarpment than on plateau soils. In another vein, the areas with
extreme susceptibility and high annual soil loss in our results overlay with areas under high
precipitation (Figure 5). This corresponds with reports by Langbein and Schumm [61] who
quantified the non-linear relationship between precipitation and sediment yield and found
that vegetation and precipitation exert competing effects, implying the force of intense
precipitation can reduce the impact of vegetation cover. More recently, Srivastava et al. [62]
likewise reported that despite high vegetation cover, there can be more runoff as a result of
high precipitation. Therefore this implies greater erosion risk under climate change and
increase in erosion incidences [23]. Even though reports exist for a forecasted decline in
precipitating amount, intensity, and duration on the Jos Plateau [18], recent climate records
for the region reveal a persistent increase in precipitation amount (https://weatherspark.
com/; accessed on 25 September 2022), backed by observed changes in both rainfall amount
and intensity. The Jos East area receives high rainfall, especially in the months of July and
August. The Kurumi catchment is located vicinity of hills and forms tributaries, which
are the origin of the many famous rivers in Northern Nigeria such as River Gongola,
River Hadejia, and River Yobe. This area will continue to encounter devastating soil loss
especially now with the increase in rainfall intensity and duration reported in the region
under climate change.
In general, the devastation of erosion and soil loss in the Koromi catchment is acceler-
ated by the hilly terrain in the area, the soil type (sandy loam) which is highly susceptible
to erosion, and high rainfall factors acting on the catchment which is further aggravated by
a lack of technical farming and conservation practices. Silt and sand content in the region is
high (Figure 8), and Mhangara et al. [22] discussed that soils become highly erodible if the
presence of silt percentage is high. Of importance to note is that the farmlands generally lie
on the flood plain (minor stream orders) hence there is devastation as the runoff finds ways
to escape from its obstructions which is largely the cultivated lands. This is can result in
negative impacts on vegetation cover, soil productivity for agricultural activities, ground
water contamination as also reported by Fashea et al. [31]. Additionally, the major road
connecting Jos to the LGA headquarters was destroyed as at the time of this study in 2015
(see Figure 1), disconnecting the settlements around its vicinityas a result of erosion. It
was concluded that an underestimation of the erosive power of the runoff from the major
drainage channel during the road construction resulted in the destruction of the road. There
is a need to factor this component in future constructions to select optimal reliable and
sustainable paths for road constructions.
In terms of model (RUSLE) efficiency, Eisazadeh [43], on the basis of accuracy
and precision, however questioned the reliability of RUSLE compared to the MPSIAC.
Elisazadeh’s [43] study in ten basin upstream reservoirs of West Azerbajan province of Iran
answers the question after evaluating the two models (MPSIAC and RUSLE) in estimating
soil loss and sediment yield. Their findings reflects the strength of MPSIAC over RUSLE.
Geomatics 2022, 2 514

It shows that MPSIAC has a high capability in soil erosion and sediment yield in basins
upstream reservoir compared to the RUSLE with a higher bias rate. Questions are also
directed at the ability of the RUSLE to accurately estimate soil loss in the case of gully
erosion aside from the usual sheet and rill erosion it’s often employed [38,43,47]. Fiçici [44]
on the basis of accuracy identifies the MPSIAC to give more reliable data while comparing
the MPSIAC and RUSLE methods in soil erosion analysis at the Madra Dam basin of Turkey.
Other reasons identified for the superiority of MPSIAC over the RUSLE hinge on the num-
ber of parameters it weights to present a more precise soil loss estimate [38]. According
to Daneshvar [38], the PSIAC or/and MPSIAC model employs nine factors which are,
surface geology data, soil data, climate data, runoff, topography, vegetation cover, land
use, upland erosion, and channel erosion data while RUSLE, on the other hand, adopts five
(5) factors: rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, slope factor, cover factor, and management
practices [33]. Regardless of Elisazedeh’s [43] prioritization of the MPSIAC over RUSLE,
Danesh [38] reiterated that the MPSIAC method is specially designed for implementation
in arid and semi-arid regions as simulated in the United States of America at its creation in
1982 after the earlier introduction of the PSIAC in 1968. Notwithstanding, RUSLE/USLE
has also been suggested for use for their convenience and minimum data requirement,
especially for data-scarce regions such as Africa. The RUSLE/USLE is also recommended
for GIS compatibility on various scales, and mostly its application in terrain with soft
undulating slope [48], as such widely used in the Nigerian context [29–31,47–51] and we
consider its performance in our study region sufficient for soil loss estimation. However,
we recommend further studies to adequately understand vegetation–precipitation–soil
loss relationships and to identify effective management strategies, especially in hilly and
steep slope terrains. We also recommend a deeper understanding of erosion in relation to
different vegetation types, and likewise infiltration rate in future studies. This will direct
pragmatic and sustainable management strategies for regulating erosion in Nigeria.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

In this study, RS and GIS data and tools were effectively used in the assessment and
estimation of the annual average soil loss in the Koromi-Federe catchment of Jos East LGA
of Nigeria. The result showed that the influence of factors such as the soil type (K-factor),
slope length/slope steepness (LS-factor), and rainfall (R-factor) exacerbated soil loss in the
catchment area. Factors such as vegetated cover (C-factor) and management practices (P-
factor) however reduced soil loss, but vegetation cover was not very effective in completely
eradicating soil loss in hilly areas with steep slopes and under heavy rainfall. These hilly
regions are famous hiking paths and grazing areas, this portrays dangers to cattle and
human life if not properly managed. Our findings support previous reports that vegetation
and precipitation suggest competing effects, implying the force of intense precipitation
can reduce the impact of vegetation cover. We, therefore, conclude that erosion and soil
loss in the Koromi–Federe catchment is aggravated by anthropogenic factors of improper
farming practices and overgrazing like in most parts of Nigeria, but more influenced by
the increase in rainfall and suitable environmental factors (steep slopes and soil). This is
a key finding as it can guide sustainability practices to control erosion in the region. We,
therefore, recommend sustainable cropping systems such as terracing, contour ridging,
and effective cattle ranching for effective soil loss control in Jos East LGA and Nigeria.
The Koromi–Federe catchment is located within hills and forms major river tributaries.
This area will continue to encounter devastating soil loss especially now with increased
rainfall intensity and duration reported in the region under climate change. The need for
sustainable land management practices cannot be over-emphasized, and we recommend
further studies to adequately understand vegetation–precipitation–soil loss relationships
for effective and practical erosion control.
Geomatics 2022, 2 515

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.U., J.O.A. and E.S.I.; methodology, A.A.U., J.O.A. and
E.S.I.; software, A.A.U., J.O.A. and E.S.I.; validation, A.A.U., J.O.A. and A.I.; formal analysis, A.A.U.,
J.O.A. and E.S.I.; investigation, E.N.G., E.S.I. and H.A.S.; resources, E.S.I.; data curation, A.A.U. and
J.O.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.U. and J.O.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A.U.,
J.O.A., A.I., E.N.G.; E.S.I. and H.A.S.; visualization, A.A.U., J.O.A. and E.S.I.; supervision, E.N.G.,
E.S.I. and H.A.S.; project administration, A.A.U., J.O.A. and A.I. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the support National Centre for Remote Sensing Jos, which is
an aegis of National Space Research Agency, Nigeria. We also acknowledge the state holders of the
Jos East LGA under the leadership of Hon. Dauda Barde for giving us the opportunity to present our
research findings, with a promise for implementation in due time to help farmers and good people of
Jos East LGA how to curtail erosion expansion and boost sustainable food and cattle production in
Jos East LGA.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dutta, D.; Das, S.; Kundu, A.; Taj, A. Soil erosion risk assessment in Sanjal watershed, Jharkhand (India) using geo-informatics,
RUSLE model and TRMM data. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2015, 1, 37. [CrossRef]
2. Köninger, J.; Panagos, P.; Jones, A.; Briones, M.J.I.; Orgiazzi, A. In defence of soil biodiversity: Towards an inclusive protection in
the European Union. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 268, 109475. [CrossRef]
3. Mikula, D.; Croskey, H.M.; Lesmez, M.W. Soil Erosion. Science 1933.
4. Bhattarai, R.; Dutta, D. Estimation of Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield Using GIS at Catchment Scale. Water Resour. Manag. 2007,
21, 1635–1647. [CrossRef]
5. Poesen, J.; Savat, J. Detachment and transportation of loose sediments by raindrop splash: Part II Detachability and transport
ability measurements. Catena 1981, 8, 19–41. [CrossRef]
6. Zougmoré, R.B.; Mando, A.; Stroosnijder, L. Soil Nutrient and Sediment Loss as Affected By Erosion Barriers and Nutrient Source
in Semi-Arid Burkina Faso. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2009, 23, 101–185. [CrossRef]
7. Lemma, B.; Kebede, F.; Mesfin, S.; Fitiwy, I.; Abraha, Z.; Norgrove, L. Quantifying annual soil and nutrient lost by rill erosion in
continuously used semiarid farmlands, North Ethiopia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 190. [CrossRef]
8. Zhao, Q.; Li, D.; Zhuo, M.; Guo, T.; Liao, Y.; Xie, Z. Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on erosion characteristics of the
red soil slope. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2015, 29, 609–621. [CrossRef]
9. Lal, R. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ. Int. 2003, 29, 437–450. [CrossRef]
10. Zhou, W.; Wu, B. Assessment of soil erosion and sediment delivery ratio using remote sensing and GIS: A case study of upstream
Chaobaihe River catchment, north China. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2008, 23, 167–173. [CrossRef]
11. Pimentel, D. Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 119–137. [CrossRef]
12. Chinnasamy, P.; Honap, V.U.; Maske, A.B. Impact of 2018 Kerala Floods on Soil Erosion: Need for Post-Disaster Soil Management.
J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2020, 48, 1373–1388. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, L.; Yan, Z.; Li, Q.; Xu, Y. Flash Flood Risk Assessment and Driving Factors: A Case Study of the Yantanxi River Basin,
Southeastern China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2022, 13, 291–304. [CrossRef]
14. Chalise, D.; Kumar, L.; Kristiansen, P. Land Degradation by Soil Erosion in Nepal: A Review. Soil Syst. 2019, 3, 12. [CrossRef]
15. Lal, R. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation: The Global Risks. In Advances in Soil Science: Soil Degradation Volume 11; Lal, R.,
Stewart, B.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 129–172.
16. Eswaran, H.; Lal, R.; Reich, P. Land degradation: An overview. In Response to Land Degradation, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis Group:
Oxfordshire, UK, 2019; pp. 20–35.
17. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 1535.
18. Chinda, P.A.; Danladi, T.E. Evidence of Climate Change on Derived Precipitation Effectiveness Indices and Anomalous Precipi-
taion Pattern of Jos South Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria. Int. J. Latest Technol. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. 2019, 8,
83–95.
19. Group, W.B. Nigeria—Erosion and Watershed Management Project (English); World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
20. Ahmari, H.; Pebworth, M.; Baharvand, S.; Kandel, S.; Yu, X. Development of an ArcGIS-Pro Toolkit for Assessing the Effects of
Bridge Construction on Overland Soil Erosion. Land 2022, 11, 1586. [CrossRef]
21. Stefanidis, S.; Chatzichristaki, C.; Stefanidis, P. An ArcGIS toolbox for estimation and mapping soil erosion. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol.
2021, 22, 689–696.
22. Mhangara, P.; Kakembo, V.; Lim, K.J. Soil erosion risk assessment of the Keiskamma catchment, South Africa using GIS and
remote sensing. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 65, 2087–2102. [CrossRef]
Geomatics 2022, 2 516

23. Routschek, A.; Schmidt, J.; Kreienkamp, F. Climate Change Impacts on Soil Erosion: A High-Resolution Projection on Catchment
Scale Until 2100. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory—Volume 1; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 135–141.
24. Onori, F.; De Bonis, P.; Grauso, S.; ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment,
Environmental Protection and Technologies Division. Soil erosion prediction at the basin scale using the revised universal soil
loss equation (RUSLE) in a catchment of Sicily (southern Italy). Environ. Geol. 2006, 50, 1129–1140. [CrossRef]
25. Markose, V.J.; Jayappa, K.S. Soil loss estimation and prioritization of sub-watersheds of Kali River basin, Karnataka, India, using
RUSLE and GIS. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 225. [CrossRef]
26. Biswas, S.S.; Pani, P. Estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE and GIS techniques: A case study of Barakar River basin, Jharkhand,
India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2015, 1, 42. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, T.; Niu, R.-Q.; Li, P.-X.; Zhang, L.-P.; Du, B. Regional soil erosion risk mapping using RUSLE, GIS, and remote sensing: A
case study in Miyun Watershed, North China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 63, 533–541. [CrossRef]
28. Gashaw, T.; Tulu, T.; Argaw, M. Erosion risk assessment for prioritization of conservation measures in Geleda watershed, Blue
Nile basin, Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 2017, 6, 1. [CrossRef]
29. Gobin, A.M.; Campling, P.; Deckers, J.A.; Poesen, J.; Feyen, J. Soil erosion assessment at the Udi-Nsukka Cuesta (southeastern
Nigeria). Land Degrad. Dev. 1999, 10, 141–160. [CrossRef]
30. Adediji, A.; Tukur, A.; Adepoju, K. Assessment of revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) in Katsina area, Katsina state of
Nigeria using remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS). Iran. (Iran.) J. Energy Environ. 2010, 1, 255–264.
31. Adeola Fashae, O.; Abiola Ayorinde, H.; Oludapo Olusola, A.; Oluseyi Obateru, R. Landuse and surface water quality in an
emerging urban city. Appl. Water Sci. 2019, 9, 25. [CrossRef]
32. Merritt, W.S.; Letcher, R.A.; Jakeman, A.J. A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environ. Model. Softw. 2003, 18,
761–799. [CrossRef]
33. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning; US Department of Agriculture,
Science and Education Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; Handbook No. 537.
34. Renard, K.; Foster, G.; Weesies, G.; McCool, D.; Yoder, D. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). In Agriculture Handbook; United States Government Printing: Washington, DC,
USA, 1996; Volume 703.
35. Laflen, J.M.; Lane, L.J.; Foster, G.R. WEPP: A new generation of erosion prediction technology. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1991, 46,
34–38.
36. Flanagan, D.C.; Ascough, J.C.; Nearing, M.A.; Laflen, J.M. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model. In Landscape
Erosion and Evolution Modeling; Harmon, R.S., Doe, W.W., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 145–199.
37. Clark, K. An estimate of sediment yield for two small sub-catchment in a geographic information system. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2001.
38. Daneshvar, M.R.M.; Bagherzadeh, A. Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq
Watershed, Northeast of Iran. Front. Earth Sci. 2012, 6, 83–94. [CrossRef]
39. Tangestani, M.H. Comparison of EPM and PSIAC models in GIS for erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi-arid
environment: Afzar Catchment, Fars Province, Iran. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2006, 27, 585–597. [CrossRef]
40. Bayramin, I.; Dengiz, O.; BAŞKAN, O.; Parlak, M. Soil erosion risk assessment with ICONA model; case study: Beypazarı area.
Turk. J. Agric. For. 2003, 27, 105–116.
41. Amiri, F. Estimate of erosion and sedimentation in semi-arid basin using empirical models of erosion potential within a geographic
information system. Air Soil Water Res. 2010, 3, ASWR-S3427. [CrossRef]
42. Rafahi, H.; Namati, M. Using EPM for study erodibility and sediment yield in Alamout watershed. Iran. J. Agric. Sci. 1994, 26,
32–45.
43. Eisazadeh, L.; Sokouti, R.; Homaee, M.; Pazira, E. Comparison of empirical models to estimate soil erosion and sediment yield in
micro catchments. Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 2012, 1, 28–33.
44. FIÇICI, M.; SOYKAN, A. MPSIAC & RUSLE Yöntemleriyle Karşılaştırmalı Erozyon Analizi: Madra Barajı Havzası. Jeomorfol.
Araştırmalar Derg. 2022, 8, 28–47.
45. Millward, A.A.; Mersey, J.E. Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena
1999, 38, 109–129. [CrossRef]
46. Ghosal, K.; Das Bhattacharya, S. A Review of RUSLE Model. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2020, 48, 689–707. [CrossRef]
47. Obiahu, O.H.; Elias, E. Effect of land use land cover changes on the rate of soil erosion in the Upper Eyiohia river catchment of
Afikpo North Area, Nigeria. Environ. Chall. 2020, 1, 100002. [CrossRef]
48. Islam, Z. Soil loss assessment by RUSLE in the cloud-based platform (GEE) in Nigeria. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2022, 8,
4579–4591. [CrossRef]
49. Okenmuo, F.C.; Ewemoje, T.A. Estimation of soil water erosion using RUSLE, GIS, and remote sensing in Obibia River watershed,
Anambra, Nigeria. DYSONA-Appl. Sci. 2022, 4, 6–14.
50. Dike, B.; Alakwem, O.; Nwoke, H.; Nwakwasi, N. Potential Soil Loss Rates in Urualla, Nigeria using Rusle. Glob. J. Sci. Front. Res.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 18, 43–48.
51. Emeribeole, A.; Iheaturu, C. Mapping of potential soil erosion risk areas in Imo State using the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE). Remote Sens. (RS) Geospat. Inf. Syst. (GIS) Tech. (10) 2015, 2, 36–44.
Geomatics 2022, 2 517

52. Ibrahim, E.S.; Rufin, P.; Nill, L.; Kamali, B.; Nendel, C.; Hostert, P. Mapping crop types and cropping systems in nigeria with
sentinel-2 imagery. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3523. [CrossRef]
53. Ibrahim, E.S.; Gajere, E.N.; Dang, B.A.; Jerome, I.; Dashan, T.; Mwada, H.; Ojih, S. Geospatial Tools for Suitable Assessment of
Small Holder Irrigation Water, towards Increased Food Production and Poverty Eradication in Nigeria: A Case of Jos East LGA.
Plateau State. J. Remote Sens GIS 2020, 9, 274. [CrossRef]
54. Hadas, A. Soil and water conservation engineering: G.D. Schwab, D.D. Fangmeier, W.J. Elliot and R.K. Frevert, 1993. J. Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 1993, 4th Edition, 507 pp., £57.00 (clothbound), £ 16.95 (paperback). ISBN 0-471-59994-8, S623. S572, 63.4 dc.
Soil Tillage Res. 1994, 32, 88–89. [CrossRef]
55. Kinnell, P.I.A. Event soil loss, runoff and the Universal Soil Loss Equation family of models: A review. J. Hydrol. 2010, 385,
384–397. [CrossRef]
56. Erbek, F.S.; Özkan, C.; Taberner, M. Comparison of maximum likelihood classification method with supervised artificial neural
network algorithms for land use activities. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 1733–1748. [CrossRef]
57. Olofsson, P.; Foody, G.M.; Herold, M.; Stehman, S.V.; Woodcock, C.E.; Wulder, M.A. Good practices for estimating area and
assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 148, 42–57. [CrossRef]
58. Kelly-Hope, L.A.; Hemingway, J.; McKenzie, F.E. Environmental factors associated with the malaria vectors Anopheles gambiae
and Anopheles funestus in Kenya. Malar. J. 2009, 8, 268. [CrossRef]
59. Hilborn, D.; Stone, R.P. Determining the Phosphorus Index for a Field; Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: Guelph, ON,
Canada, 1998.
60. Benkobi, L.; Trlica, M.J.; Smith, J.L. Evaluation of a refined surface cover subfactor for use in RUSLE. J. Range Manag. 1994, 47,
74–78. [CrossRef]
61. Langbein, W.B.; Schumm, S.A. Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual precipitation. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1958,
39, 1076–1084. [CrossRef]
62. Srivastava, A.; Yetemen, O.; Saco, P.M.; Rodriguez, J.F.; Kumari, N.; Chun, K.P. Influence of orographic precipitation on coevolving
landforms and vegetation in semi-arid ecosystems. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2022, 47, 2846–2862. [CrossRef]