Due to the difficulties of data retrieval empirical models

To further compare the two models and to identify which method provides better results, we collated the erosion rates by comparative analysis of the results from both models. A spatial overlapping analysis of the outputs was performed on a pixel-by-pixel basis. The amount of pixel belonging to the same class according to both models, normalised in respect of the total amount of pixels classified in the same way by the RUSLE3D or by the USPED, BMS 470539 reported in Table 6. Furthermore, the percentage of the amount of basin belonging to the same class, normalised in respect of the total amount of pixels in the grid, is shown in Table 7. Low erosion class (RUSLE3D) and low erosion plus deposition classes (USPED) show the best match. This effect was clearly depending on the ranges selected for the classification, besides the fact that no filter was applied to smooth the map and reduce fluctuations between nearby pixels (noise).
Table 6.
Percentage of the amount of pixel (and corresponding surface) belonging to the same class according to both models, normalised in respect of the total amount of pixels classified in the same way by the RUSLE3D or by the USPED.ClassesOverlapping%Extreme erosion12High erosion17Moderate erosion14Low erosion + deposition50Full-size tableTable optionsView in workspaceDownload as CSV