See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337401025

Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully

Erosion in a Watershed in Deccan, India

Chapter · January 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23243-6_7

CITATIONS READS

0 279

1 author:

Veena U. Joshi
Savitribai Phule Pune University
40 PUBLICATIONS 537 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Veena U. Joshi on 05 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques
to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion 7
in a Watershed in Deccan, India

Veena U. Joshi

Abstract Keywords
The study is a compilation of three field-monitoring Profilometer · Rainfall simulator · Erosion-pin · Gully
techniques applied in a watershed in Deccan Traps, erosion · Badlands
India, to measure soil erosion through gullies and rills.
More than 4 million hectares of land in India is severely
affected by rill and gully erosion. It is necessary to inves-
tigate the gully formation process and the problem of gully
erosion that will help in proper planning of the landuse in
7.1 Introduction
this region. The study area falls in a semi-arid tract of
Soil erosion and land degradation are a problem worldwide,
Maharashtra where the landscape is densely dissected by
though the degree of severity differs from one country to
gullies to form badlands. These badlands are greatly dis-
another. The problem became more intensified in the last few
turbed and reclaimed for agriculture. A microprofilometer
decades, more so in India, due to the increasing population
was fabricated to monitor gully heads and five profiles
pressure (Joshi and Nagare 2009). Rill and gully erosion are
were monitored every 6 months for 3 years that displayed
consuming several million hectares of agricultural lands in
rapid expansion of gully network annually. Within the
India in an unprecedented rate (Singh and Dubey 1998). The
same basin, two badland catchments were selected and
removal of vegetative cover and unplanned land-use
erosion pins were inserted into the ground. The exposed
practices have been the main reasons behind the acceleration
pinheads were measured after every monsoon for 2 years
in the erosion and have transformed large areas into ravine
and volume loss were calculated from these basins for two
lands (Singh and Agnithoti 1987). Badlands are intensely
time periods that yielded the soil loss of 0.76 kg/m2/year
dissected lands, mostly fluvial in origin, characterized by
from sample basin 1 and 1.79 kg/m2/year for sample basin
high drainage densities, v-shaped valleys and short steep
2 during the monitoring period. The third experiment was
slopes where vegetation is absent or sparse and is of no
rainfall simulation under controlled condition on six
economic use, especially agriculture (Bryan and Yair 1982).
experimental plots within the same basin. The average
Badlands though develop in a wide range of materials and
soil loss after 1 h experiment was 0.8 km/m2 which is a
climate are usually found in arid and semi-arid environment
very high value for such sediment-starved terrain. A
and develop on unconsolidated and poorly cemented material
glance at the results obtained from the three techniques
known as marls. Badlands can be formed naturally on the
reveal that gully network expansion and soil erosion are
sites where lithology is favourable, vegetation is sparse and
happening in a big way in the region. Such field-
climate is semi-arid with prolonged dry season, but many of
monitoring techniques are helpful not only in understand-
the badlands are also induced by human activities (Wells and
ing the actual soil loss scenario in the field, but such data
Andreamiheja 1995; Bryan and Yair 1982). Even the natural
are valuable because nowadays, soil loss estimates are
badlands have become more actively undergoing erosion
done using remote-sensing data in GIS environment, and
now due to the human disturbances of the fragile system
such field generated data provides validity to studies
that exists there.
conducted using RS and GIS techniques.
Badlands are dynamic landscape where erosion rate and
sediment yield are high. Review of the literature reported
V. U. Joshi (*)
Department of Geography, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, from all over the world (Bryan and Yair 1982; Wells and
India Andreamiheja 1995; Gallart et al. 2013; Nadal-Romero et al.

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 109

P. K. Shit et al. (eds.), Gully Erosion Studies from India and Surrounding Regions, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23243-6_7

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
110
2018) suggests that though the badlands are dynamic system,
they maintain a stability if undisturbed. Over the years in
general and last two decades in particular, badlands have
been extensively reclaimed wherever accessible, and it
holds true for the badlands that are found along Pravara
River and two of its tributaries in Deccan Traps Region,
Maharashtra, India. River Pravara is a tributary of Godavari
River in Maharashtra. Deccan Volcanic Province exhibits
rocky landscape and there is dearth of sediments and soils
are very thin everywhere. These valuable soils are lost
heavily every year through rill and gully erosion. Evidence
reveal that the degradation of land and the rate of erosion
have increased many folds due to the human interference in
the landscape in the last few decades. India is an agricultural
country and land is the most precious resource. Hence it is a
matter of serious issue for concern, and there is a need for a
thorough investigation to minimize the problem effectively.
The chapter presents a compilation of three different field-
monitoring techniques applied to a badland topography to
estimate rill and gully erosion in a watershed in the Deccan
Trap Region in Maharashtra.
Investigators from across the globe have carried out sev-
eral studies on soil loss estimation over the years using
different techniques. Watson and Evans (1991) compared
estimates of soil erosion made in the field with that from
the photographs. A mesh-bag method was used by Hsieh
(1992) for field measurement of soil erosion. Sirvent et al.
(1997) calculated soil loss from a field using profilometer,
collectors and erosion pins. Heng et al. (2011) conducted
flume scale experiments to model the dynamics of soil ero-
sion. Bowyer-Bower and Burt (1989), Bhardwaj and Singh
(1992), Cerda et al. (1997) etc. estimated sediment yield from
experimental plots using rainfall simulators. Nowadays, most
of such types of studies to monitor gully erosion are done
using high-resolution images such as LiDAR or laser scanner
images or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or UAVs (Tucker et al.
2006; Evans and Lindsay 2010; Wang et al. 2016 etc.). The
best result is obtained when field-monitoring and RS data are
combined to calculate gully erosion (Slimane et al. 2018).
The outcome of such studies is to find suitable land-use
practices to minimize further land degradation in such sensi-
tive areas. Such outcomes have been reported earlier for some
watersheds in the Deccan Traps Region of Maharashtra
(Joshi 2014; Joshi and Tambe 2010).
7.2 Study Area
The study has been conducted in a watershed in Pravara
Basin in Maharashtra, India. This area is a part of the Deccan
Trap Region where semi-arid conditions prevail. Figure 7.1
demonstrates the location of the study area. Rivers mostly
flow through rocks and do not develop well-defined
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
V. U. Joshi
floodplains. This study area falls under Godavari Basin,
which is an exception in Maharashtra where thick alluvial
deposits are found along the riverbanks at several locations
and within the same basin, there are pediment slopes with
thick sediment cover exceeding 10 m in thickness. These
deposits are severely dissected by gullies and form badlands
at many places. There are long stretches of badlands along the
banks of the Pravara River and its tributaries. Apart from that,
few pediment foot slopes also demonstrate similar badland
features. Joshi and Nagare (2013) produced the evidence of
neotectonism as the initiating factor of these badlands. Fur-
ther acceleration of the gullying process in the region is
evident that are believed to be the response of the new land-
use practices introduced recently in these watersheds (Joshi
and Nagare 2009). It is one of the most important mesoscale
sub-watersheds of Godavari Basin, having an area of
2930 km2 and badlands occupying approximately 18% of
the area. These badlands are levelled extensively for agricul-
ture now. The reclamation became more intensified post year
2000 when irrigation facilities became available to the
farmers in these areas. Due to the rugged nature and
inhospitability of the terrain, the badlands were left alone
from any activity until year 2000 when government took
the initiative to construct dams and weirs across the main
Pravara River and its tributaries for irrigation. It has boosted
agriculture in the area like never before and soon the plain
fertile regions became exhausted and farmers started
levelling these badlands. Landuse took a sharp turn following
this period. Since then land levelling and expanding agricul-
ture has become a common practice in the area, which has
induced accelerated erosion in the area.
The region experiences monsoonal climate. Rain-shadow
effect of the Western Ghat induces low average annual rain-
fall and high rate of evapotranspiration. The region is usually
hot and dry in summer with mild winter, and precipitation is
confined during the four monsoon months from June to
September with a mean annual rainfall range between
470 and 500 mm.
Although the amount of rainfall is less, there are few
rainstorms every year with fairly high intensity exceeding
50 mm/h (Joshi and Nagare 2013). This is responsible for
initiating new rills and gullies every monsoon in these dis-
turbed badlands. Winter is dry and invigorating, that lasts
from November to mid-February. The average temperature of
the region is 25  C. The pre-monsoon period of March till
June is hot throughout the region, with May experiencing
highest temperature of over 40  C on many days. Southwest
monsoon arrives late June/early July and last till September,
sometimes till the beginning of October. Vegetation cover is
sparse and dominantly includes thorny acacias, which are
typical of semi-arid regions. By and large, silt and sand
predominate the sediment and clay content is less. Field
observation of the area reveals various renewed evidences
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . .
Fig. 7.1 Location map of the study area
of land degradation and gully erosion. So far there had been
rarely any sediment yield and erosion rate data for the area
under review. Hence the author monitored gully erosion rates
in a few catchments within the basin for a period of 3 years
using a self-fabricated microprofilometer, self-fabricated
rainfall simulator and erosion-pin techniques. The chapter is
the compilation of the three techniques applied in the area.
7.3 Monitoring and Assessment
7.3.1 General Sedimentological Properties
Assessment
Sedimentological properties play an important role in the
development of badlands as well as further degradation of
them. Certain soils are more erodible than others and they
crumble quickly under natural processes as well as
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
111
anthropogenic activities. Fifteen samples were collected
from the field to detect erodibility of these sediments by
using a few indices that are relevant. Granulometric analysis
was conducted for the samples by using X-ray-based
sedigraph. Silt and sand dominate the sample population
though the entire range is from gravel to clay.
7.3.1.1 Results of the Sedimentological Analyses
Figure 7.2 displays the textural characteristics of these
sediments. It is evident that sand and silt constitute 3/4 of
the entire sample size fractions. Particle size statistics were
determined adopting Folk and Ward (1957) technique and
found that all the samples are very poorly sorted (Table 7.1).
There is wide spectrum in mean phi range as can be seen in
the Table. Except for a few, most of the samples demonstrate
positive skewness indicating the predominance of the finer
fractions. Samples reveal low-peaked platykurtic to strongly
peaked leptokurtic. All these undoubtedly suggest variation
112 V. U. Joshi

Fig. 7.2 Textural characteristics of the sediments

in the energy level during the deposition of these sediments. using a Philips Diffractometer and Ni-filtered Cu Kα radia-
The predominance of silt in the sample population implies tion. Figure 7.3 displays the result of five samples taken
that these are more erodible soils. depthwise from a vertical sediment profile exposed along a
Clay is an important sediment property that controls the gully wall. Samples reveal abundance of expandable smectite
susceptibility of them to outside forces, especially water. clays with traces of chlorite and kaolinite. Presence of smec-
Smectite clays have high shrinking and swelling properties, tite is very distinct in all the samples and this is a major cause
thus promotes loosening of the soil catena and induce ero- of slacking in the sediments. Ten undisturbed samples were
sion. The clay fractions were subjected to examination by collected and tested in the laboratory for their physical
X-ray diffraction (XRD) of oriented K/Ca saturated samples properties. Results indicate that field dry density values
range from 1.11 to 1.72 g/cm3 suggesting low density and
permeability ranges between 1.10  10 3 and 1.25  10 6,
Table 7.1 Sample statistics of the sediments
indicating high permeability of soils.
Sample no. Mean Phi size Sorting Skewness Kurtosis
Soil erodibility plays a vital role in understanding the
1 0.29 1.77 0.33 1.06
development of badlands and rate of erosion. Some soil
2 0.21 1.36 0.12 1.01
yield easily to water erosion while some show fair resistance
3 0.54 2.26 0.22 1.47
based on their properties. The textural, mineralogical and few
4 1.13 3.01 0.51 0.65
5 0.38 2.68 0.64 1.19
physical properties indicate that the soil is susceptible to
6 3.96 4.12 0.68 0.54 erosion. Further actual K values have been calculated for
7 2.33 2.69 0.38 0.77 these samples using soil erodibility nomograph to quantify
8 0.63 1.29 0.20 0.72 their erodibility status (Wischmeier et al. 1971). The result of
9 0.17 2.09 0.46 1.31 the calculation has been presented in Table 7.2. Results
10 1.25 3.03 0.57 0.88 indicate that actual K values are not very high except for
11 0.96 1.42 0.56 1.93 just a few samples. Review of the literatures reveals that soil
12 1.75 3.03 0.29 0.72 can be erodible if exchangeable sodium percentage is high
13 3.08 3.23 0.32 0.64 and if the soil contains smectite clays. Hence few chemical
14 1.08 2.75 0.44 0.80 properties that are relevant have been studied and the
15 0.71 1.67 0.61 1.07 exchangeable sodium percentage has been calculated.

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 113

1
25

20
4

15
2

10

5
05

Fig. 7.3 Clay mineralogy of the sediment samples taken at different depths

Table 7.2 Erodibility

Sample no. Sfv% S% Organic matter Structure Permeability K value
1 6.45 52.58 0.06 Coarser granular Rapid 0.03
2 3.64 79.15 0.06 Blocky massive Rapid 0.05
3 51.15 58.67 0.12 Coarser granular Slow to moderate 0.62
4 12.49 46.9 0.24 Coarser granular Moderate 0.09
5 37.02 57.13 0.12 Coarser granular Slow to moderate 0.32
6 31.23 48.89 0.6 Coarser granular Moderate 0.19
7 21.65 62.34 0.21 Coarse massive Moderate 0.18
8 31.49 65.05 0.06 Coarse massive Moderate 0.28
9 13.15 51.17 0.18 Coarser granular Moderate 0.09
10 27.28 53.74 0.06 Coarser granular Moderate 0.17
11 17.94 56.22 0.54 Coarser granular Moderate 0.1
12 14.12 71.19 0.09 Blocky massive Moderate 0.17
13 26.14 63.84 0.15 Coarse massive Moderate 0.22
14 18.11 64.03 0.12 Coarse massive Moderate 0.16
15 4.01 66.2 0.06 Coarse massive Rapid 0.07
K values of the sediment samples
Calculated using the soil erodibility nomograph (Wischmeier et al. 1971)
Sfv silt + VeryFine sand, S sand

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
114 V. U. Joshi

Table 7.3 Chemical properties of the sediment and exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP)
Sample Org. CaCO3 Exch. Ca Exch. Mg Exch. sodium Exch. potassium Cation Exc. Cap.
no. pH carbon (%) (%) (meL 1) (meL 1) (meL 1) (meL 1) (me/100 g soil) ESP
1 9.20 0.06 2.25 9.00 1.20 6.50 0.10 9.00 7.22
2 8.98 0.06 7.00 10.60 0.20 4.50 0.10 10.50 4.29
3 8.31 0.12 10.75 9.80 4.00 4.50 0.12 16.00 2.81
4 8.86 0.24 32.75 16.40 3.80 9.00 0.12 17.00 5.29
5 8.93 0.12 20.25 8.80 3.20 4.50 0.14 13.50 3.33
6 8.30 0.60 21.75 16.80 1.40 7.50 0.16 14.50 5.17
7 7.95 0.21 26.75 16.60 3.40 8.50 0.12 11.50 7.39
8 8.43 0.06 8.25 15.80 3.00 4.50 0.08 6.50 6.92
9 8.40 0.18 12.00 15.40 2.60 5.50 0.08 10.00 5.50
10 8.78 0.06 16.00 12.80 3.20 7.00 0.14 11.00 6.36
11 8.10 0.54 16.25 18.40 0.20 9.00 0.14 12.50 7.20
12 7.80 0.09 18.50 11.40 9.00 5.50 0.16 13.00 4.23
13 8.30 0.15 5.75 11.00 4.20 6.50 0.18 14.50 4.48
14 7.80 0.12 14.50 14.40 4.40 8.00 0.22 16.00 5.00
15 8.10 0.06 14.50 8.80 5.80 4.50 0.18 13.00 3.46
16 7.58 0.18 14.00 8.50 2.10 4.00 0.38 14.50 2.76
17 7.70 0.12 13.75 10.40 7.60 6.50 0.12 12.00 5.42
18 7.69 0.18 35.75 11.60 7.00 5.50 0.26 13.50 4.07

Fig. 7.4 Exchangeable sodium

percentage against depth

Sodium is known to disintegrate soil aggregates and induce
dispersion of clay particles. Geochemical properties of these
samples were obtained, and exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) was calculated and produced in Table 7.3. An addi-
tional 3 surface samples were added to the analysis. ESP
ranges from 2.5% to 7.5%. Fifteen percent is considered
threshold of the ESP for erosion, but in smectite-rich soils,
the threshold goes much below. Figure 7.4 indicates the
relationship between ESP and depth. Many of the values
cluster around 3 and few surface samples go up to 7. A
weak negative relationship can be seen in the figure
indicating that surface samples are more sodic than the ones
at the depth. This has a significant implication in badland
erosion. The combination of the results of these analyses
suggests moderately to fairly erodible sediments.
7.3.2 Microprofilometer Technique
The area chosen for study is a badland and observation of the
field over the years indicates that these badland gullies
expand their network through head ward as well as linear
erosion every year. Evidences are clearly visible all along the
badland stretch after each monsoon season. New gullies

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . .
appear on the reclaimed fields and the natural gullies change
their cross-sectional profiles. The first experiment was to
understand the mode of gully expansion using a
microprofilometer.
Before the high-resolution DEMs such as LiDAR and
Terrestrial Laser Scanners became available, micropro-
filometer technique was used to monitor gully heads in
many areas of the world. Until today, results obtained from
microprofilometer technique are widely used. Micropro-
filometer was common in the late 1960s/1970s and popular
till the 1990s. Many of such profilometers were used for
agricultural engineering, though they were used for academic
purpose also. Newton (1968) designed a device to measure
ripple marks underwater. Curtis and Cole (1972) constructed
one microtopographic profile gauge for agricultural engineer-
ing. Mosley (1975) designed and used a profilometer for the
accurate survey of small-scale slopes. Leatherman (1987)
developed a microtopography profiler (MTP) to measure
the amount of direct sand displacement resulting from
off-road vehicles (ORVs) travelling along the beach.
Microerosionmeters were designed for different environment
and used by Robinson (1976), Trudgill et al. (1981) and Toy
(1983). Benito et al. (1992), Sirvent et al. (1997) and Desir
and Marín (2007) used microprofilometer to measure erosion
rates in badlands. Malinov and Ilieva (2017) employed a
microtopographic profile gauge to monitor erosion on gullies
developed along the erosion concentration lines caused by
Fig. 7.5 Microprofilometer fabricated for the study
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
115
vehicle wheels on unmetalled roads. Microtopographic pro-
file gauge was used by Karimov et al. (2015) to monitor the
development of ephemeral gullies on agricultural lands. A
microprofilometer was fabricated to measure gully expansion
and erosion rate for the present study and used to detect
annual changes in the cross-sectional profiles of five badland
gully heads in the study area.
7.3.2.1 Fabrication of the Microprofilometer
The fabricated microprofilometer is a wooden frame of
1.13 m/0.93 m where steel rods have been inserted against
the frame at the interval of every 2 cm (Fig. 7.5). The wooden
frame is painted white to resist the weather and a graph is
drawn on it and calibrated. The structure has two legs that
have flat bottoms designed to be placed with balance on fixed
erosion pins. The steel rods can slide through the holes made
at the bottom of the frame. When this instrument is placed on
gullies, we remove the lock at the bottom of the frame and the
rods slide down and rest on the ground below, thus creating a
graph of the cross-section on the board. Once placed on gully
profiles, all that is required is a perfect front shot picture by a
camera. XY of the points are calculated by a programme
generated in PASCAL for every cross-section.
Adula and Mahalungi are two tributaries of Pravara River.
Along the banks for these rivers, extensive badlands have
been formed on alluvium. Two ephemeral gullies at Adula
and three at Mahalungi were selected for monitoring their
116
expansion after every monsoon. The monitoring started in
2007 and continued till the end of 2009. Two readings were
taken each year, one before and one after the monsoon. The
monitoring profiles were close to the source of the gullies
where the erosion is maximum. Two pins were inserted to the
ground across the cross-section where the instrument was to
be placed. Since the area is characterized by rolling badland
topography, maintaining horizontality was not achieved
every time, but these pins fixed the spots and helped in
maintaining uniformity at every time of measurement.
The first monitoring was on May 29, 2007, because that is
the driest time of the year in the area, and the second reading
was taken in November after complete cessation of the mon-
soon. This continued till the end of 2009. All the five sections
are the first-order gullies of the badland system with general
slope ranging from 25 to 35 . The monitored cross-sections
of these gullies are presented in Fig. 7.6. Each time the same
camera was used to click the photos and care was taken to
take the photo with constant angle and height. Of the two
sites, Mahalungi is more disturbed than Adula. Badland
Profile No 1
Profile No 5
Profile No 3
Fig. 7.6 Figure depicts the monitoring five cross-profiles
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
V. U. Joshi
reclamation is a lot more at Mahalungi than the later. All
the five cross-sections were carefully selected away from the
reclaimed areas where no animal or human would disturb the
profiles. Dates of the surveys were kept closest to each other
every season.
7.3.2.2 Results of the Microprofilometer
Monitoring
The result of monitoring after 2 years reveals that gullies are
expanding the cross-sections rapidly. Figure 7.7 shows the
changes in the cross-sections during the monitoring period
and Tables 7.4 and 7.5 demonstrate the actual cross-section
as well as changes after every survey. It is clear that consid-
erable changes have occurred in all the profiles within the
monitoring period. Some values are negative indicating
reduction in the area and implying deposition. This suggests
that erosion of the bed and banks of the gullies was rapid but
sediments were transferred downstream at different rain
episodes, hence temporarily held storage on the beds to be
flushed out in the next rain. Most of the profiles showed
Profile No 2
Profile No 4
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 117

Fig. 7.7 Figure shows changes in the cross-sectional areas of the gullies during the monitoring period

Table 7.4 Cross-sectional area (cm2) from the day of monitoring till the end of monitoring
Cross-section no. May 2007 Nov 2007 May 2008 Nov 2008 May 2009
1 1175.12 1556.42 1482.73 1597.03 1582.50
2 1369.45 1677.42 1670.42 1714.01 1523.30
3 1536.67 1711.18 1610.67 1358.11 1351.40
4 1463.93 1478.21 1489.32 1466.32 1355.40
5 1213.77 851.92 1008.74 980.34 754.50

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
118
Table 7.5 Changes in the cross-sectional area (cm2) during the monitoring period
May 2007 Nov 2007
Cross-section no. Nov 2007 May 2008
1 353.3 150.3
2 224 278.6
3 247.3 10.9
4 395.1 117.5
5 53.8 61.6
remarkable increase in the cross-sectional area. Most of the
erosion occurred during the early monsoon. Rate of erosion
declined as vegetation started growing over the badland
slopes. After December, grasses turned dry and ground
became bare again until monsoon arrived in June. As the
ground dried, bank failure was common and the sediments
were slumped at the rill bottoms. By and large, greater and
more intense rainfall events promoted erosion because such
events generated run-off capable of transporting the
sediments deposited at the bed and also progressively devel-
oped new rills and gullies. The seasonal behaviours in sedi-
ment erosion and transportation have been reported by many
researchers earlier (Schumm 1964; Hodges and Bryan 1982;
Benito et al. 1993). It can be clearly observed in the present
study area also, such as that the region experiences long dry
season from October till mid-June. Rate of erosion retards
during the dry period but sediments slump and deposit to the
gully bottoms. Occasional light showers are unable to move
these sediments and are held storage at the rill bottoms.
Zanchi (1988) reported that seasonal variations in rain pro-
duce variations in monthly erodibility in such landscapes.
Changes in the moisture content and little variation in the
physical properties of the soil throughout the year result in
variability in erodibility in the present study area also. There
is a cyclic pattern of erosion and deposition following the
seasonality of rainfall. Within the Godavari Basin, the entire
badland area occupies 2930 km2. We can imagine the depth
of the problem that all the gullies expand the network at this
rate in the entire region under review.
7.3.3 Erosion-Pin Technique
It is evident from the results of the profilometer technique that
every year, considerable erosion is experienced in the area
under investigation. The results revealed only the cross-
sectional expansion but did not give volume of soil erosion.
To evaluate total soil loss, erosion-pin technique was
employed in the same two sites, selecting two catchments,
one from each site. Before the experiment, the technical bulle-
tin of Haigh (1997) was carefully studied. The erosion-pin
method to calculate soil loss was also employed by other
investigators (Hessel and Asch 2003; Ghimire et al. 2013
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
V. U. Joshi
May 2008 Nov 2008 May 2007
Nov 2008 May 2009 May 2009
244.1 13.4 273
107.6 123.5 271.5
62.2 174.6 0.4
34.2 267.9 210.5
28.4 199.4 220
etc.). The first catchment was at Adula (Fig. 7.8) and the
second was at Mahalungi site (Fig. 7.9). Firstly, the basins
were surveyed using a theodolite in order to select spots for pin
installation. The approximate area of Adula catchments is
1600 m2 and that of Mahalungi catchment is 2100 m2.
DEMs were generated in Arc-GIS for the basins from Shuttle
radar topographic mission (SRTM) DEM, and the erosion-pin
locations were determined on the map for both the basins. Fifty
erosion pins were installed in each basin. Each pin was of
50 cm length and they were driven into the spots marked on
the DEM with only 1 cm of the rod exposed above the ground.
For easy location, the pins were painted white. The pins were
installed at the same time when profilometer monitoring began
in 2007. After 1 year, the exposed parts of the pins were
located and the height was measured. Out of the 50 pins,
only 35 pins could be located because many were buried and
could not be found. The exercise was repeated again in 2009
and this time all 35 pins were located. The data was used to
calculate net loss and gain in Arc-GIS. Table 7.6 indicates the
results of the experiment.
7.3.3.1 Results of the Microprofilometer
Monitoring
Results of the experiment indicate that between May 2007
and May 2008, the calculated sediment yield from Adula
Basin was 0.87 kg/m2 and that from Mahalungi Basin was
1.71 kg/m2. In the following year between May 2008 and
May 2009, it was 0.65 kg/m2 for the first basin and 1.87 kg/
m2 for the second basin. The average of these 2 years
indicates an annual sediment yield of 0.76 kg/m2/year for
Adula Basin and 1.79 kg/m2/year for Mahalungi Basin. The
difference in the sediment yield between the two basins could
be attributed to many factors. Both the catchments are very
similar in terms of sediment properties and terrain
characteristics. Mahalungi is more populated than Adula
and currently it is undergoing massive transformation by
various activities, especially agriculture. Badlands are
levelled and practised agriculture and such remodelling of
the slopes increase susceptibility to erosion. Adula is not
much reclaimed hence the natural slopes have more stability
than the former. The tolerance limit of soil loss for Deccan
Plateaus has been presented by Mandal and Sharda (2011) as
between 0.25 and 1.25 kg/m2/year, and comparing the soil
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 119

Adula Sample Basin

J

^_
K
1

^_
^_
I

^_
3
4

^_

^_
2

^_
5 L

^_
^_
6

^_
H 31
^_

^_
8 7

^_

^_
9

^_
29 10
30 ^_
^_

^_

^_
27
11
^_

28
26
^_
^_

F
^_
^_

E 25 12
^_
^_

^_

24
21
^_

14
^_

^_

D
^_

22 23 13 N
^_

^_

^_

^_

G
^_

15
C 20
^_
^_
^_

B 18 16 17
^_

^_

19
^_

^_
^_

A
^_

O
INDEX
^_

P
Q
^_
^_

Drainage
Network
Watershed
Boundary
^ Gully Head Pins

^ Erosion Pins

0 2.5
±
5 10
Meters

Fig. 7.8 The field pictures and the DEM of Adula Basin. The location of the erosion pins have been depicted in the DEM

loss values of both the basins with the tolerance limit of the 2017; Wang and Lai 2018 and others). Almost all these
soil for Deccan Region indicates that the values are above the simulators were designed and fabricated to suit local
threshold of tolerance limit. conditions and different requirements. The present rainfall
simulator also has been designed for the present study and
many factors were taken into considerations while designing
7.3.4 The Rainfall Simulator Experiment it. The design of this simulator is almost identical with the
one used by Dunne et al. (1980), but few modifications have
A rainfall simulator has been designed to conduct experiment been made to suit the local condition. It is an auto-simulator
to measure infiltration, run-off and sediment yield under but has been adjusted in such a way that in difficult terrain, it
controlled condition for the study area. Though rainfall sim- could be operated manually. However, for the present study,
ulation experiments are used worldwide, such studies are not all the simulations had been performed under auto set-up.
common in the area under review. Few studies have been
conducted in India using a rainfall simulator (Bhardwaj and 7.3.4.1 Design of the Simulator
Singh 1992; Singh et al. 1999). Rawat et al. (1992), Rawat The rainfall simulator which has been designed for the present
and Rawat (1994) and Rawat and Rai (1997) have performed work consists of a bolted steel frame of 2  2 m in dimension.
rainfall simulation to understand infiltration, discharge, The height of the simulator was 3 m but the legs were made
run-off and sediment yield from different watersheds. Out- adjustable in length to facilitate a firm footing along an uneven
side India, such studies are reported often (Young and terrain. Four custom made nozzles were attached to a wheeled
Burwell 1972; Tricker 1979; Dunne et al. 1980; Bryan trolley in the central line of the frame. The nozzles were
1981; Pall et al. 1983; Roth et al. 1985; Exeter 1990; Hignett 1.2 mm in diameter and the wheels moved freely and automat-
et al. 1995; Singh et al. 1999; Wright et al. 2002; ically along the track. The ends of the track were protected
Sukhanovskii 2007; Sangüesa et al. 2010; Haffzullah et al. with foam rubber. The trolley was programmed to slide 1.9 m

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
120 V. U. Joshi

Mahalungi Sample Basin

INDEX
F
E
^^_ 5
_
^^_6 7
_

^1
_
G
^_ 2 8
^_
D
^10
_
Drainage Network
^_ ^_ ^_
3 4 C
^_ ^_
^_
14 ^_ Watershed Boundary
9
^_ 15

^
^_
^_
13
Gully Head Pins
^
H 11 16
^_ _
^
17
^_ Erosion Pins
18 ^_
^_
B
I 20 ^_
21 ^_
^_ ^_
19
^_ 23
^_ ^_
30 33
^_ ^_
22
^_ 31
24
^_ ^_
29
27 ^_
25 ^_
^_
34
^_
26
^_ 32
35 ^_
28 ^_
^_
36 N
^_ L M ^_
J K ^_
^_ ^_ ^_

0 2.5
± 5 10
Meters

Fig. 7.9 The field pictures and the DEM of Mahalungi Basin. The location of the erosion pins has been depicted in the DEM

Table 7.6 Erosion-pin monitoring result

Eroded Net loss
Sample Basin Eroded Deposited Bulk density volume Deposited volume Sediment
basins area (m2) volume (m3) volume (m3) (g/cm2) (tonnes) volume (tonnes) (tonnes) yield (kg/m2)
Adula 1670 5.12 4.12 1.45 7.43 5.97 1.45 0.87
catchment
2007–2008
Mahalungi 2100 8.59 6.01 1.45 12.45 8.71 3.74 1.71
catchment
2007–2008
Adula 1670 2.98 2.23 1.45 4.33 3.24 1.09 0.65
catchment
2008–2009
Mahalungi 2100 4.85 2.04 1.45 7.04 2.96 4.08 1.87
catchment
2008–2009
Adula 1670 8.11 6.35 1.45 11.75 9.21 2.54 1.52
catchment
2007–2009
Mahalungi 2100 13.44 8.05 1.45 19.49 11.67 7.82 3.58
catchment
2007–2009

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . .
Fig. 7.10 (a) It is a schematic sketch of the end and side diagrams
which shows the suspension of a spray nozzle from a trolley that is
moving on wheels in an overhead track running the full length of the
length in 3 s along the track. This speed had been so decided to
ensure uniform spray of rain all over the plot during 1 h of
experiment. A removable canvas sheet had been used as a part
of the design to shield the plot during the experiment on windy
days. A schematic diagram of the instrument and different
parts of the systems have been displayed in Fig. 7.10. The
design is parallel to the one used by Dunne et al. (1980).
Firstly the amount of water that would be required during
1 h experiment was carefully calculated and based on the
estimate; a water tank of 500 l capacity was used for the
experiment. An HP diesel pump was used to supply water
from the tank to the nozzles. One pipe of the pump was
connected to the water tank while another bifurcation of the
pipe was attached to the nozzles. Pressure was controlled by a
valve which was fixed to the pipe. This allowed adjustment of
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
121
rainfall simulator. (b) It is a schematic sketch of the fabric that has been
used to supply water to the simulator. (Designed after Dunne et al. 1980)
the water flow rate during the experiment. Trial experiments
were conducted many times before the actual use of the
instrument and many adjustments were made following
each trial. Final calibration was complete after several trial
experiments and instrument was ready for real experiment.
At the lower end of the plots, a collector flume was placed
firmly to receive the run-off and sediment. The collector was
designed exactly the same as Dunne et al. (1980)’s without
any modification. Figure 7.11 shows the collector sheet metal
trough and the dimension specifications.
The metal trough was adjusted to match the slope of the plot
and care was taken not to let it spill out during the experiment.
At the end of the plot, a 2 m long, 25 cm deep and 22 cm wide
trench was dug where the metal trough was firmly inserted.
When the roof of the metal trough was laid horizontal, the floor
122
8 cm
25 cm
24 cm
4 cm
Fig. 7.11 Run-off collector, cut from a piece of sheet metal bent to form a trough with a slope of 10%
had a gradient of 10%, to ensure sufficient delivery of all
sediment discharge effectively to the outlet. After the complete
installation of the collector, all the gaps between the soil and
metal trough were filled with plaster of Paris.
Within the watershed under review, experiments were
conducted regularly for a period of 2 years on different
plots. Figure 7.12 depicts the simulator at different experi-
mental plots. In the present chapter, the results of six plots
that are akin to badlands have been discussed.
7.3.4.2 Results of the Rainfall Simulation
Experiment
Figure 7.13 presents the results of the infiltration rates during
1 h experiment for all the six plots. Within the first few
minutes of the experiment, rate of infiltration increased rap-
idly till the middle of the experiment for plot no 1, 3 and
4 and slowly started declining. Pattern is lightly different for
plot 2, 5 and 6 that showed a sharp decline within just a few
minutes of the experiment. This may be due to the variation
in the clay content of the sediments of different plots. As the
experiment continued, the differences became subtle till the
end of the experiment.
Run-off began slowly soon after the experiment for all the
plots and increased rapidly till the middle of the experiment
and became stable. The rate of run-off for the plots during the
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
V. U. Joshi
10 cm
experiments can be seen in Fig. 7.14. The pattern is the exact
reverse of the infiltration as expected that prevailed till the
end.
Sediment yield during the experiment as depicted in
Fig. 7.15 that displays different patterns for all the plots.
Plots 1 and 3 show gradual increase as the experiment
continued, with the highest value around 20 g/m2 for plot
no. 1. Plot no. 4 shows drastic difference both in pattern and
value of the soil loss. Within the first 5 min, sediment dis-
charge shot up to 300 g/m2 and continued till the end. Minor
fluctuations can be seen in plot 5 and 6 in the sediment
discharge pattern.
The variation in the infiltration, run-off and final soil loss
of the six plots are attributed to presence/absence of grasses,
properties of the sediments and slope. All the six plots repre-
sent the variation in the badland topography in the study area,
such as slope and ground cover. The relationships between
infiltration, run-off and sediment loss against time have been
individually obtained and presented in Figs. 7.16, 7.17 and
7.18. The regression lines confirm what was described in the
previous paragraphs. Infiltration and run-off generation time
were influenced by several factors differently for each plot.
Grass cover played an important role, since their ability to
hold water promoted delay in the run-off until the soil was
drenched till the root depth. Where clay was high on the bare
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 123

Fig. 7.12 Rainfall simulation experiment on different plots

plots, the swelling smectite clays created a thin crust after the
initial flushing of the loose earth, hence retarded infiltration
after a few minutes of the experiment. Slope also played an
important role especially on the bare plots. Ploughed and
loosened fields rapidly lost sediments within the first few
minutes of the experiments and continued the pattern till the
end but the plots covered with crop residue protected the
surface from raindrop impacts and the results showed nega-
tive correlation with erosion. Bradford and Huang (1994) in a
similar experiment in Central Illinois presented the same
findings that whether it was conventional till or no-till plot,
crop residue changed the infiltration, run-off and soil loss
significantly. The plots yielded different results based on the
slope and ground cover. The objective was to understand a
general scenario of soil loss from the badland under review
and hence the average has been calculated that resulted in
0.8 kg/m2/year.
7.4 Discussion and Conclusion
The main aim of the chapter was to report the application of
three field experimental techniques applied for the first time
in a watershed in the Pravara Region, Deccan, India and their
significance in soil loss estimates. Microprofilometer tech-
nique, erosion-pin technique and rainfall simulation under
controlled conditions were applied in a badland watershed
along Pravara River, Maharashtra. The region contains

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
124 V. U. Joshi

Experiment plot 1 Experiment plot 4

Infiltration (mm / h)

Infiltration (mm / h)
80 80
60 70
60
40 50
40
20 30
20
0 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Time (min)

Experiment plot 2 Experiment plot 5

Infiltration (mm / h)

80

Infiltration (mm / h)
70 80
60 70
50 60
40 50
30 40
20 30
10 20
0 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Time (min)

Experiment plot 3 Experiment plot 6

Infiltration (mm / h)

80
80
Infiltration (mm / h)

70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

Fig. 7.13 Infiltration during the experiment for the six experimental plots

smectite swelling clays and significantly high exchangeable
sodium percentage that makes them fairly erodible soil. The
region experiences a semi-arid climate with prolonged dry
season that is favourable for the formation of badland topog-
raphy. Monitoring with the help of microprofilometer tech-
nique reveals that the area is experiencing rapid expansion in
gully network. All the five sections monitored showed
remarkable changes in the cross-sectional area within
2 years. The region is characterized by badland topography
with dense fabric of gully network. All the gullies in the area
are expanding at that rate continuously. It also has been
observed that erosion and deposition are episodic. However,
the net yield is positive by the end of the monitoring period.
The result is in agreement with cyclic erosion-deposition
presented by Sirvent et al. (1997) as a response to seasonal
rains in badland area.
Erosion-pin method resulted in annual sediment loss from
the two basins as 0.76 kg/m2/year from Adula and 1.79 kg/
m2/year from Mahalungi. Though these two watersheds do
not represent the entire soil loss from the badland under
review, it is clear that from each small badland catchment,
enormous volume of sediment is eroded every year by the
gullies. Differences in the catchments also were revealed due
to the human interference of these slopes. The tolerance limit
of the soil loss for Deccan Peninsular region has been
reported in an earlier study by Mandal and Sharda (2011)

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 125

Runoff (mm/hr) 50
Experiment plot 1 50
Experiment plot 4

Runoff (mm/hr)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

50
Experiment plot 2 50 Experiment plot 5
Runoff (mm/hr)

Runoff (mm/hr)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

50
Experiment plot 3 60
Experiment plot 6
Runoff (mm/hr)

Runoff (mm/hr)

40 50
40
30
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

Fig. 7.14 Run-off during the experiment for the six experimental plots

that ranges between 0.25 and 1.25 kg/m2/year. The soil loss
values indicated by these two basins after all the three
experiments indicate high limit already. If the current landuse
is continued and no conservation practice is adopted, the
region will bear serious soil loss in the following years.
There is a cyclic pattern of erosion and deposition following
the seasonality of rainfall. Similar findings have been
presented by Johnston et al. (1980) and Sala (1988) in their
studies.
Determining sediment yield from different representative
plots under controlled rainfall experiment demonstrated that
1 h of rainstorm during the early monsoon rain can erode
huge volume of sediments from these gullied watersheds.
Indirectly the experiment has revealed that within the same
region, different ground cover and terrain characteristics have
differently influenced sediment yield, thus suggesting possi-
ble choices of a more feasible way to utilize these badlands.
Due to the increasing population pressure all over the
country, it is difficult to protect and conserve the natural
geomorphic terrain any more now. Reclamation for the pur-
pose of agriculture, housing and other commercial activities
will go on. What is necessary is to bring an optimum balance
to these land-use practices. It can be possible to achieve this
with thorough investigation of such sensitive environments
and the field-monitoring techniques have proved to be
advantageous.
With the increasing use of RS and GIS and continued
availability of high-resolution DEMs, such types of studies
are mostly conducted nowadays using remote-sensing and
GIS techniques. But ground validation is required for such
investigations. Hence this chapter is a contribution to the
understanding of the erosion scenario in the real ground
condition. Improvement is necessary in these techniques
by increasing frequency in data collection and expanding
the duration of monitoring period for better results and for
meaningful planning purposes in future.

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
126 V. U. Joshi

Experiment plot 1 350 Experiment plot 4

Sediment loss gm/m2

Sediment loss gm/m2

50 300
40 250
30 200

20 150
100
10
50
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Time (min)

Experiment plot 2 Experiment plot 5

80
50

Sediment loss
Sediment loss

40 60

gm/m2
gm/m2

30
40
20
10 20
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

Experiment plot 3 Experiment plot 6

Sediment loss gm/m2

100 100
Sediment loss gm/m2

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

Fig. 7.15 Sediment loss during the experiment for the six experimental plots

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 127

80
80 Experiment plot 1 70 Experiment plot 4

Infiltration (mm/h)
Infiltration (mm/h)

70
60
60
50
50
40 40
30 y = -0.2966x + 72.865 30
20 R² = 0.922 20 y = -0.3785x + 52.568
10 10 R² = 0.5004
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)
80
80 70
Experiment plot 2 Experiment plot 5

Infiltration (mm/h)
70 60
Infiltration (mm/h)

60 50
50
40
40
30
30
20 20
y = -0.3835x + 63.718 y = -0.2553x + 53.699
10 10
R² = 0.8299 R² = 0.3783
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

Experiment plot 3 80 Experiment plot 6

Infiltration (mm/h)

80 70
Infiltration (mm/h)

60
60 50
40
40 30
20 y = -0.572x + 71.758 20 y = -0.2336x + 64.968
R² = 0.8784 10 R² = 0.5343
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min) Time (min)

Fig. 7.16 Relationship between infiltration and time during the experiment

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
128 V. U. Joshi

60
Experiment plot 1 Experiment plot 4
50

Runoff (mm/hr)
25
Runoff (mm/hr)

20
y = 0.2693x + 3.9575 40
R² = 0.9541
15 30
10 20 y = 0.4269x + 23.204
5 R² = 0.5793
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0
Time (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Experiment plot 2 50 Experiment plot 5
50 y = 0.3646x + 13.159

Runoff (mm/hr)
40
Runoff (mm/hr)

40 R² = 0.8237
30 30
20
20
10 y = 0.369x + 21.412
0 10
R² = 0.5946
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
Time (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
50
Experiment plot 3 Experiment plot 6
50
40
Runoff (mm/hr)
Runoff (mm/hr)

40 y = 0.2703x + 10.618
30
30 R² = 0.6947
20 20

10 10 y = 0.2703x + 10.618
R² = 0.6947
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Time (min)

Fig. 7.17 Relationship between run-off and time during the experiment

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . . 129

Experiment plot 1 Experiment plot 4

50 400
Sediment loss gm/m2

Sediment loss gm/m2

350
40
300
30 y = 0.1733x - 0.0036 250
R² = 0.6932 200
20
150
10 100 y = 3.184x + 158.61
0 50 R² = 0.5003
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0
Time (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
50 Experiment plot 2
Experiment plot 5
Sediment loss gm/m2

80

Sediment loss gm/m2

40 y = 0.6595x + 7.7558
30 R² = 0.9113 60

20 40

10 y = 0.648x + 30.243
20
R² = 0.515
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Time (min)

100
Experiment plot 6
Experiment plot 3
Sediment loss gm/m2

100
Sediment loss gm/m2

80
80
y = 1.2291x + 3.2461
y = 0.996x – 8.382 60
60 R² = 0.8207
R² = 0.83
40 40

20 20
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Time (min)

Fig. 7.18 Relationship between sediment loss and time during the experiment

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
130 V. U. Joshi

References Johnston HT, Elsawy EM and Cochrane SR et al (1980) A study of the

infiltration characteristics of undisturbed soil under simulated rain-
fall, Earth Surf Proc and Land, 5: 159–174
Benito G, Gutierrez M, Sancho C et al (1992). Erosion rates in Badlands
Joshi VU and Nagare V (2009) Land Use and Land Cover Change
areas of the Central Ebro Basin (NE Spain). Catena 19: 269–286
Detection along the Pravara River Basin in Maharashtra, using
Benito G, Gutirrez M. and Sancho C et al (1993) The influence of
Remote Sensing and GIS techniques. Acta Geodaetica ET
physico-chemical properties on erosion processes in badland areas,
Geophysica Hungarica, AGD Landscape & Environment 3(2):
Ebro Basin, NE-Spain. Zeist. Geom. 37: 199–214
71–86
Bhardwaj A and Singh R (1992) Development of a portable rainfall
Joshi VU and Nagare V (2013) Badland formation along the Pravara
simulator infiltrometer for infiltration, runoff and erosion studies.
River, Western Deccan, India, Can tectonism be the cause? Zeist
Agri Wat Man. 22: 235–248
Geom. 57(3): 349–370
Bowyer-Bower TAS and Burt TP (1989) Rainfall simulators for
Joshi VU and Tambe DT (2010) Estimation of Infiltration Rate, Run-off
investigating soil response to rainfall; Soil Technol. 2: 1–16
and Sediment Yield under simulated rainfall experiments in Upper
Bradford JM and Huang CH (1994) Interill soil erosion as affected
Pravara Basin India, Effect of slope angle and ground cover, Journal
tillage and residue cover. Soil and tillage research. 31(4) 353–361
of Earth System Science, 119 (6): 763–773
Bryan RB (1981) Soil erosion under simulated rainfall in the field and
Joshi VU (2014) Soil loss estimation based on profilometer and erosion
laboratory: variability of erosion under controlled conditions. Ero-
pin techniques along the badlands of Pravara Basin, Maharashtra.
sion and Sediment Transport Measurement (Proceedings of the
Journal of Geological Society of India, 83(6): 613–624
Florence Symposium, June 1981). 1AHS Publ. no. 133
Karimov V, Sheshukov A, Barnes P et al (2015) Impact of Precipitation
Bryan R and Yair A (1982) Badland geomorphology and piping. In Geo
and Runoff on Ephemal Gully Development in Cultivated
Books University Press Cambridge, 1–11
Croplands. Sediment Dynamics from the Summit to the Sea,
Cerda A, Ibanez S and Calvo A et al (1997) Design and operation of a
December 11–14, 2014, USA
small and portable rainfall simulator for rugged terrain; Soil Technol.
Leatherman SP (1987). Field Measurement of Microtopography. J of
11: 163–170
Coast Res. 3(2): 233–235
Curtis WR and Cole WD (1972) Micro-topographic profile gauge. Agri
Malinov I and Ilieva D (2017) Gully and Rill Erosion in the National
Engg. 53: 17
Park “Central Balkan”. Bulg J of Agri Sc. 23(2): 238–241
Desir G and Marín C (2007) Factors Controlling the Erosion Rates in a
Mandal D and Sharda VN (2011) Assessment of permissible soil loss in
Semi-arid Zone (Bardenas Reales, NE Spain). Catena 71: 31–40
India employing a quantitative bio-physical model. Current Sc. 100
Dunne T, Dietrich WE and Brunengo MJ et al (1980) Simple, portable
(3): 383–390
equipment for erosion experiments under artificial rainfall; J. Agric.
Mosley MP (1975) A device for the accurate survey of small scale
Engg. Res. 25: 161–168
slopes. British Geomorph Res Group. Tech. Bull. 17: 11–6
Evans M and Lindsay J (2010) High resolution quantification of gully
Nadal-Romero E, Martinez-Murillo J and Kuhn N (eds) (2018)
erosion in upland peatlands at the landscape scale. Earth Surf Proc
Badlands Dynamics in a Context of Global Change, Elsevier
Land. 35, 876–886 (2010)
Newton RS (1968) Anew device for measuring ripple mark profiles
Exeter NL (1990) Design and operation of a rainfall simulator for field
underwater. Marine Geology. 6: 73–75
studies of runoff and soil erosion; Soil Technol. 3: 385–397
Pall R, Dickinson WT, Reals D, and McGirr R et al (1983) Development
Folk RL and Ward WC (1957) Brazos river bar: A study in the signifi-
And Calibration of a Rainfall Simulator. Cana Agri Eng. 25(2):
cance of the grain size parameters. Jour. Sed. Pet. 27: 3–26
181–187
Gallart F, Marignani M, Pérez-Gallego N, Santi E and Maccherini S et al
Rawat JS and Rai SP (1997) Pattern and intensity of erosion in the
(2013) Thirty years of studies on badlands, from physical to vegeta-
environmentally stressed Khulgad watershed, Kumaun Himalaya.
tional approaches. A succinct review, Catena, 106: 4–11
J. Geol. Soc. India. 50: 331–338
Ghimire SK, Higaki D and Bhattarai TP et al (2013) Estimation of Soil
Rawat JS and Rawat MS (1994) Accelerated erosion and denudation in
Erosion Rates and Eroded Sediment in a Degraded Catchment of the
the Nana Kosi watershed, Central Himalaya, India. Part I: Sediment
Siwalik Hills, Nepal. Land 2: 370–391
Load. Mt. Res Dev. 14: 25–38
Haffzullah A, Ebru E and Gokmen T et al (2017) Empirical Sediment
Rawat JS, Haigh MM and Rawat MS et al (1992) Hydrological response
transport models based on indoor rainfall simulator and erosion
of a Himalayan pine forest micro-watershed; Preliminary results;
flume experimental data. Land Degra and Dev. 28: 1320–1328
Proc. Int. Symp. on Hydrology of Mountainous Areas, Simla
Haigh M (1997) Use of Erosion Pins in the Study of Slope Evolution, A
28–30 235–258
technical report at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
Robinson LA (1976) The micro-erosion meter technique in a littoral
281004697
environment. Marine Geology. 22, M51-M58
Heng BCP, Sander GC, Armstrong A, Quinton JN and Chandler JH et al
Roth CH, Meyer B and Frede HG et al (1985) A portable rainfall
(2011) Modelling the dynamics of soil erosion and size-selective
simulator for studying factors affecting runoff, infiltration and soil
sediment transport over non uniform topography in flume-scale
loss. Catena. 12: 79–85
experiments. Wat Reso Res. 47(2): W02513
Sala M (1988) Slope runoff and sediment production in two Mediterra-
Hessel R and Asch TV (2003) Modelling gully erosion for a small
nean mountain environments. Catena Supplementary. 12: 13–29
catchment on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Catena. 54: 131–146
Sangüesa C, Arumí J, Pizarro R, and Link O et al (2010) A rainfall
Hignett CT, Gusli S, Cass A and Besz W et al (1995) An automated
simulator for the in situ study of superficial runoff and soil erosion.
laboratory rainfall simulation system with controlled rainfall inten-
Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 70(1): 178–182
sity, raindrop energy and soil drainage; Soil Technol. 8: 31–42
Schumm SA (1964) Seasonal variations of erosion rates and processes
Hodges WK and Bryan R (1982) Influence of material behavior on
on hillslopes in western Colorado. Zeitsc Geom Supplementary. 5:
runoff initiation in the Dinosaur Badlands, Canada. In: R. Bryan
215–238
and A. Yair (Eds.), Badland Geomorphology and Piping. Geobooks,
Singh S and Agnithoti SP (1987) Rill and gully erosion in the subhumid
Norwich, pp. 13–46
tropical riverine environment of Teonthar Tahsil, M.P, India.
Hsieh YP (1992) A mesh-bag method for field measurement of soil
Geografiska Annaler, 69A-1: 227–236
erosion.-J of Soil and Wat Cons. 47(6), pp. 495–499

pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
7 Application of Field-Monitoring Techniques to Determine Soil Loss by Gully Erosion. . .
Singh S and Dubey A (1998) Rate of erosion in the hierarchical orders of
natural and cultivated gully basins of Deoghat area, Allahabad
District, India. Ind. J. of Geomorphology, 3(1): 75–94
Singh R, Panigrahy N and Philip G et al (1999) Modified rainfall
simulator infiltrometer for infiltration, runoff and erosion studies.
Agri Wat Managt. 41: 167–175
Sirvent J, Desir G. Gutierrez M. Sancho C and Benito G (1997) Erosion
rates in badland areas recorded by collectors, erosion pins and
profilometer techniques (Ebro Basin, NE-Spain) Geomorphology.
18: 61–75
Slimane AB, Raclot D, Rebaid H, Bissonnais YL, Planchon O and
Bouksila F et al (2018) Combining field monitoring and aerial
imagery to evaluate the role of gully erosion in a Mediterranean
catchment (Tunisia). Catena. 170: 73–83
Sukhanovskii YP (2007) Modification of a Rainfall Simulation Proce-
dure at Runoff Plots for Soil Erosion Investigation. Eur Soil Sc. 40
(2): 195–202
Toy TJ (1983) A linear erosion/elevation measuring instrument
(LE MI). Earth Surf Proc and Land. 8: 313–3
Tricker AS (1979) The design of a portable rainfall simulator
infiltrometer; J. Hydrol. 41: 143–147
Trudgill ST, High CJ and Hanna FK (1981) Improvements to the micro
erosion meter. British Geom Res Group Tech Bull. 29: 3–17
Tucker GE, Arnold L, Rafael L, Flores BH, Istanbulluoglu E and
Sólyom P et al (2006) Headwater channel dynamics in semiarid
rangelands, Colorado high plains, USA, Geol Soc of Am Bull. 118
(7/8): 959–974
Wang YC and Lai CC (2018) Evaluating the Erosion Process from a
Single-Stripe Laser-Scanned Topography: A Laboratory Case Study.
Water. 10, 956
Wang R, Zhang S, Pu L, Yang J, Yang C, Chen J, Guan C, Wang Q,
Chen D, Fu B and Sang X et al (2016) Erosion Mapping and
Monitoring at Multiple Scales Based on Multi-Source Remote Sens-
ing Data of the Sancha River Catchment, Northeast China. ISPRS
Int. J. Geo-Inf. 5: 200
Watson A and Evans R (1991) A comparison of estimates of soil erosion
made in the field and from photographs. Soil and Tillage Res. 19:
17–27
pravatgeo2007@gmail.com
View publication stats
131
Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B. and Cross, B.V. (1971): A soil
erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites, J. Soil
and Wat. Conserv. 26, 189–193
Wells N. A and Andreamiheja B (1995) The initiation and growth of
gullies, Madagascar- Are humans to be blamed? Geomorphology, 8:
1–46
Wright JA, Smith J, Gundry SW and Glasbey CA et al (2002) A spatial
rainfall simulator for crop production modeling in southern Africa;
Math. Comput. Model. 35: 1459–1466
Young RA and Burwell RE (1972) Prediction of Runoff and Erosion
from Natural Rainfall Using a Rainfall Simulator. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 36: 827–830
Zanchi C (1988) Soil loss and seasonal variation of erodibility in two
soils with different texture in the Mugello valley in Central Italy.
Catena Supplementary. 12: 167–173
Veena U. Joshi is currently a Professor in the Department of Geogra-
phy, Savitribai Phule Pune University. She did her M.A., B.Ed., M.Phil.
and Ph.D. from the same university. She has been conducting research
on gully formation and dynamics in the Deccan Traps Region of
Maharashtra for the last 35 years and published many articles in both
national and international journals and chapters on Badland special
volumes. She has been awarded Fulbright Nehru Senior Research Fel-
lowship, Fulbright Nehru Environmental Leadership Fellowship for
USA, ERASMUS MUNDUS Fellowship for Belgium, Endeavour
Award for Australia, and JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science) for Tokyo to conduct collaborative research with international
scientists. She is member of several scientific committees including the
Gully Erosion Research group. She has completed two international
collaborative projects funded by the European Union with nine partner
countries. She is instrumental in the student’s exchange programs with
international universities and home university. She has established soil
monitoring lab in the institute to promote soil erosion research. She is
actively engaged in gully erosion research and working on the develop-
ment of an indigenous soil erosion model for India.